The de-liberalization of photography

On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!

Doug McDonald

On 12/2/2010 9:34 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!


The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.
In the situation the duck mentioned, I understand him to be lamenting
that there are broad based black or white rules, with no room for
discretion. Indeed. In the classic example of two men who steal from a
sto
The first is unemployed through to no fault of his own. He steals some
food to feed his family.
The second steals because he doesn't even try to find work and that is
how he makes his living.
IMHO the two should receive different treatment. Under the rules the
duck cited, there is no room for discretion. The two receive equal
treatment,



--
Peter

On 2010-12-02 07:31:33 -0800, peter said:

On 12/2/2010 9:34 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!


The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.
In the situation the duck mentioned, I understand him to be lamenting
that there are broad based black or white rules, with no room for
discretion. Indeed. In the classic example of two men who steal from a
sto
The first is unemployed through to no fault of his own. He steals some
food to feed his family.
The second steals because he doesn't even try to find work and that is
how he makes his living.
IMHO the two should receive different treatment. Under the rules the
duck cited, there is no room for discretion. The two receive equal
treatment,

Correct, if both are found guilty as the result of a trial jury, or
bench, the judge is constrained by sentencing guidelines. Those
guidelines can be the terms as proscribed in the State Penal Code with
various enhancements. There is a shopping list of enhancements such as
minimums for the use of a firearm ( for example, rob a store using a
knife, or indicating you might be carrying a gun, the sentence might be
2-4 years. Brandish a firearm and you are looking at 8-12 years, fire
the weapon and you are going to deal with 15 years.)

The "Three Strikes" Law simply works like this. A first violent felony
conviction is sentenced according to the Penal Code proscription for
the crime. So that firearm brandishing robber might be looking at 8
years. He will get credit for time served in County jail, and if he
programs or works while in State prison he can get "day for day"
credit, and he can be back on the street in about 5 years and be on
parole for 3 years.
If after he is released he goes and commits the exact same crime, and
is convicted his sentence is doubled to 16 years and he has to serve
85% of the term. A third felony of any type will have him facing
25-life with parole only possible after 25 years.

The big difference can come in a plea bargain negotiation, in which the
judge plays no part. The plea agreement would adjust the charges for
which a guilty plea is accepted, and waive priors and other
exacerbating factors. That would allow the judge discretion to sentence
to a more lenient sentence.
With the current state of the California budget at state and county
levels the County District Attorney's Offices are being encouraged to
consider looking for a plea bargain as a method of reducing Court costs
to the counties.

Of the two types of individuals you described, I can relate one of my
first, fairly naive encounters as an investigator, with an individual
who was a downright charming thief.
He would waffle on about the social life he enjoyed, the expensive
restaurants he frequented, the fine clothing he wore, and the beautiful
women he kept. He was facing about 6 years in State prison (before 3
strikes) and had many prior convictions. I asked him, why as an
obviously intelligent individual, with fine taste, he didn't get an
education, or learn a trade which would support the lifestyle he
enjoyed.
He looked at me as if I was crazy and said, " I don't program. I'm a
thief. That is what I know."
I consider him one of the most dangerous individuals I have ever met,
and I have known some very violent men. He would go out on a dinner
date, and rob a Seven-Eleven on the way to the restaurant, because that
was the way he did things, and he wasn't going to let anybody spoil his
night out.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 9:34 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!


The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.
In the situation the duck mentioned, I understand him to be lamenting that
there are broad based black or white rules, with no room for discretion.
Indeed. In the classic example of two men who steal from a sto
The first is unemployed through to no fault of his own. He steals some
food to feed his family.
The second steals because he doesn't even try to find work and that is how
he makes his living.
IMHO the two should receive different treatment. Under the rules the duck
cited, there is no room for discretion. The two receive equal treatment,

Correct. We are a representative republic. However, a balanced use of
propositions is something of value, IMO. As I stated in onather post, if
our representatives legislate against our will, why not use proposition? I
wish we had the ability to initiate a recall of our elected officials in NY
like they do in California also.

On 10-12-02 9:34 , Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Democracy can be debilitating when every "popular" proposition passes
without a corresponding, direct on the ballot tax increase to fund it.

This is California's democracy story:

"I herewith vote for this law because I want it.
But, I don't want to pay for it."


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2010-12-02 13:35:07 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-12-02 9:34 , Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Democracy can be debilitating when every "popular" proposition passes
without a corresponding, direct on the ballot tax increase to fund it.

This is California's democracy story:

"I herewith vote for this law because I want it.
But, I don't want to pay for it."

This is a major part of the california budget problem. The voter
mandated spending has mostly been covered with bond sales. Now
servicing the bonds is a major budget consideration. The tax revenues
are down, so the options are, cutting services, which Arnie has done,
increases in fees and taxes, which has been done to some extent, and
yet the end of the tunnel is still blocked with not even a flicker of
light showing.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
lid says...

On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!

The Founders would have agreed, which is why they did not set the US up
as a democracy.

Democracy put Caesar on a throne you know.

In article ,
says...

"peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 9:34 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!


The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.
In the situation the duck mentioned, I understand him to be lamenting that
there are broad based black or white rules, with no room for discretion.
Indeed. In the classic example of two men who steal from a sto
The first is unemployed through to no fault of his own. He steals some
food to feed his family.
The second steals because he doesn't even try to find work and that is how
he makes his living.
IMHO the two should receive different treatment. Under the rules the duck
cited, there is no room for discretion. The two receive equal treatment,

Correct. We are a representative republic.

No, we are a "republic" There is no such thing as a "representative
republic".

However, a balanced use of
propositions is something of value, IMO.

When they pass the proposition that puts an emperor on a throne get back
to us.

As I stated in onather post, if
our representatives legislate against our will, why not use proposition?

Why not elect different representatives?

I
wish we had the ability to initiate a recall of our elected officials in NY
like they do in California also.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010120209053443042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-12-02 07:31:33 -0800, peter said:

On 12/2/2010 9:34 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!


The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.
In the situation the duck mentioned, I understand him to be lamenting
that there are broad based black or white rules, with no room for
discretion. Indeed. In the classic example of two men who steal from a
sto
The first is unemployed through to no fault of his own. He steals some
food to feed his family.
The second steals because he doesn't even try to find work and that is
how he makes his living.
IMHO the two should receive different treatment. Under the rules the duck
cited, there is no room for discretion. The two receive equal treatment,

Correct, if both are found guilty as the result of a trial jury, or bench,
the judge is constrained by sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines can be
the terms as proscribed in the State Penal Code with various enhancements.
There is a shopping list of enhancements such as minimums for the use of a
firearm ( for example, rob a store using a knife, or indicating you might
be carrying a gun, the sentence might be 2-4 years. Brandish a firearm and
you are looking at 8-12 years, fire the weapon and you are going to deal
with 15 years.)

Just curious, what if the gun is a fake, say an Airsoft pistol (most of
which are excellent models of the real thing) or even a water pistol?

Some years ago I went through a citizens' education course at the local
police department. At one point they passed around a water pistol which had
been spray painted matte black, apparently with the intention of using it
for robbery. The water pistol was a perfect model of a Beretta Model 86.

I have no idea (and at that time didn't think to ask) what my state's
sentencing would be in connection with the use of such a fake in robbery, as
opposed to a real firearm.

On 2010-12-03 11:13:17 -0800, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010120209053443042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-12-02 07:31:33 -0800, peter said:

On 12/2/2010 9:34 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven, so the Legislature and
Judges have their hands tied by the voters.


In other words:

You are calling democracy "unfortunate"!

Wow!


The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.
In the situation the duck mentioned, I understand him to be lamenting
that there are broad based black or white rules, with no room for
discretion. Indeed. In the classic example of two men who steal from a
sto
The first is unemployed through to no fault of his own. He steals some
food to feed his family.
The second steals because he doesn't even try to find work and that is
how he makes his living.
IMHO the two should receive different treatment. Under the rules the duck
cited, there is no room for discretion. The two receive equal treatment,

Correct, if both are found guilty as the result of a trial jury, or bench,
the judge is constrained by sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines can be
the terms as proscribed in the State Penal Code with various enhancements.
There is a shopping list of enhancements such as minimums for the use of a
firearm ( for example, rob a store using a knife, or indicating you might
be carrying a gun, the sentence might be 2-4 years. Brandish a firearm and
you are looking at 8-12 years, fire the weapon and you are going to deal
with 15 years.)

Just curious, what if the gun is a fake, say an Airsoft pistol (most of
which are excellent models of the real thing) or even a water pistol?

Some years ago I went through a citizens' education course at the local
police department. At one point they passed around a water pistol which had
been spray painted matte black, apparently with the intention of using it
for robbery. The water pistol was a perfect model of a Beretta Model 86.

I have no idea (and at that time didn't think to ask) what my state's
sentencing would be in connection with the use of such a fake in robbery, as
opposed to a real firearm.

The California Penal Code addresses this issue. I just happened to have
my copy handy.
PC 417 deals with all the different issues around drawing and
exhibiting (showing), or threatening with a firearm, not actually
shooting it.

For imitation firearms this is more specific;

PC 417.4 Imitation firearm; drawing or exhibiting: punishment; exceptions

Every person who, except in self-defense, draws or exhibits an
imitation firearm in a threatening manner agaisnt another in such a way
as to cause a reasonable person apprehension or fear of bodily harm is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprsonment in a county jail for
a term of not less than 30 days. For the purposes of this section, an
imitation firearm means a replica of a firearm that is so substantially
similar in physical properties to an existing firearm as to lead a
reasonable person to conclude that the replica is a firearm.

Now combine any of PC 417 with another crime such as a robbery and that
opens up another set of issues.
There intent comes into play, and that intent can include implied
threat and the perception of that threat by a victim.

So a robbbery committed with a fake or a real firearm, because of the
implied threat has an equal weight in court.
If it turns out to be a real firearm and it is fired everything moves
up the scale.


--
Regards,

Savageduck