Cheating death and fighting communism: that is how a fellow officer once described our job. It was meant to be funny, but as time went on it seemed all too true.
I spent more than ten years in law enforcement, all of it on the street in uniform patrol. I've been a patrol officer, instructor, sergeant and lieutenant.
Do not report crimes here. Nothing here should be considered legal advice. All opinions are my own.
I'm confused by the concept of "stricter regulation." There are thousands of laws and regulations on the books now that regulate the purchase and ownership of firearms and ammunition in the United States. There is an entire federal law enforcement agency dedicated to the enforcement of gun laws (and who gets to make arbitrary regulations regarding the legality of different types of firearms, importation, etc.).
Murder, which I presume is what you would like to stop, predates the invention of firearms. It is already illegal, yet it still happens every day. People have tried to prevent people from murdering others for centuries, yet no one has been able to do so.
What stricter regulation on a firearm do you suppose would stop murder?
Evil exists. Real, true evil exists in the world. Some people don't want to believe it, but it does. Evil people will not obey laws and will harm and kill others no matter what laws you put into place.
- I oppose new gun regulations in all forms.
- I support the repeal of many current gun laws.
- I support the disolving of the BATFE.
- I support the right of all citizens to use that force which is reasonably necessary to defend themselves and others from attack and forcible felonies.
- I oppose anyone who would take away the freedoms of any law abiding citizen including the rights to privacy, speak out, assemble, practice a religion, engage in commerce, and keep & bear arms. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." In other words, if a man -without reasonable cause- harms another, then the goverment has authority to act. But, unless and until that happens, a government has no authority to interfere in the lives of free men. I should not tell another man how to live, nor should he tell me how to live my own life.
Pursuing more restrictions on lawful gun owners serves no moral purpose, but only serves the purposes of evil - preventing people from a legitimate form of defense from criminals and illegal governments.
Yes, it is called fraud. It is a kind of theft - taking something (a service or property) that doesn't belong to you. Oftentimes it is a felony.
I don't know - that is a civil issue.
Police screening should be mandatory. It should start when they apply to attend the academy or apply for a job with a department (depending on what the proceedures are for your state.) Any earlier is called spying; any later would be foolish.
Bouncer
Debate Coach
Lifeguard
What happens depends on what happened. For example, if an elderly person or someone suffering from a known medical condition is found dead inside their home, and there are no signs of criminal activity, a cursory investigation is done to document that information.
If a person is found dead in other circumstances, say with a gunshot wound or ligature marks, the situation is investigated as a homicide. The results of the investigation could lead to a ruling of wrongful death/murder, suicide, accidental homicide, justified homicide, or undetermined cause of death. Keep in mind these are all just generalities, and specific determinations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Generally, the primary investigative agency will be the one where the body is located. There are provisions in the law that would allow another agency to handle the investigation in certain circumstances. For example, if a person was kidnapped in county A, was taken through county B, was killed in county C, and was dumped in county D, any of the jurisdictions where the crime took place (all four) could assume control of the investigation. However, this is governed by state law (which varies) and common sense almost always applies. For example, county B in the above case would not try to take control of the investigation. Keep in mind that each state has its own set of laws that may be different that what I described. Also, transporting someone across state lines during the commission of a crime can now involve two different sets of state laws plus federal law since it is an interstate crime.
Get one or don't get one; I don't much care. I thought perhaps you felt bad about being a thief and wanted to take responsibility for your actions.
yes
-OR-
(max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)