I'm a felon, I've served my time...can I have my rights back please?

reply to post by Lichter daraus


California court system is rigged.

Posting from work limited response time.

Originally posted by chrome413
There are only two types of criminals- Those who have been caught and those who haven't. Thank goodness I've never been caught, but if I had been I could be in prison right now. Heck, I've done dirtier things than some people in prisons, but guess what? Nobody knows, so I'm just one of the herd. For now.

I still feel that there is some sort of conspiracy (for lack of a better word) going on here where in the end only the elite and privileged few will be voting or carrying weapons (of any kind, not just firearms).

P.S. I am not a violent person and I'm not going to rob any of you, so don't be scared of me. I'm merely trying to make a point, so that people examine themselves and see that deep down, we all aren't so different after all. Until we stop playing by certain socioeconomic rules then it's always going to be an Us vs. Them thing.

Now that is my saying about two types of criminals! lol Great minds and all.

We are all capable in different situations of bending the law, a lot of it has to do with what social class people are raised in, the level of education, deprivation even for some and we are all capable of doing wrong in different circumstances. To a politician, corporation or elite having lots of money means they can make and bend the rules to protect their wealth, tax dodging millions in over seas accounts, but hey the little guy doesn't pay his taxes one year and he's a major criminal being put away for fraud. C'mon, it's all about socioeconomics in a dog eat dog world. The only criminals I detest are extremely violent/sex offenders and we apparently have a lot of those in the elites too that simply are too high up to be touched. The majority of crimes are dealt with as to what class you are and whether you have loads of cash to pay for a 1st class lawyer.

reply to post by onequestion


Get out of California! New York, Cally, Chicago are all crap. Go to Texas, Florida, southern states. Liberal states are screwed up right now.

reply to post by onequestion


no worries, i can do some searching about it.

I hate how the system is. I forgive and forget. You should have your rights back. Even talking to an illegal alien is considered a felony (i.e giving them a ride or telling them how to get to the hospital)

reply to post by Dogdish


I did say that there should be exceptions. You did commit a crime but for a noble reason and I commend your compassion in doing so. I do have to say that I would not hesitate to cross the line for the safety of my family or to ease a family members pain.

So there are so many posts and replys i cant get to all of them but i will try and address a few issues that seem to be popping up a lot.

First off im not looking for empathy i know what i did and i probably not only deserved some sort of punishment but needed it. Having said that do i think i need to be punished for the rest of my life? No... Would i shoot someone if i had a gun? If they were robbing my house that would be the only situation i would be in that i would have a gun on me and yes i would if the situation called for it.

To the people who think getting into a fist fight is such a big deal i think your overeacting, as a metter of fact i think you should get into one just for the experience. Please take that the right way.

I wrote this thread out of frustration because i cant go hunting with my brother and a few other family members and yea thats a big deal to me, if you cant relate then thats due to your lack of empathy.

I wanted the subject matter to not be about my case specifically but i used my case as a catalyst for discussion. I want to discuss what people think and what the laws are regarding this issue and a lot of the discussion has been really good.

I really appreciate everyones input and ive been following the thread closely. My schedule is busy, really busy untill the weekend but im going to pay attention as closesly as possible.

Thanks ATS.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Will you please point out in the Constitution where it states that felons get to maintain their rights after being convicted of a federal crime?

reply to post by Lichter daraus


I meant to reply more to your post earlier.

Basically the system in California is sickening, not just my case, but ive watched them railroad people because of how overloaded the system is. They really NEED to legalize that green plant but not apart of this topic.

Basically the DA, and PD trade off cases based on what the case is about, if your case involves violence you get the dirt end of the stick for a case that doesnt. Im not saying anything other then thats how they do it. How i feel about that well... heh, i may be biased.

reply to post by spqrenki


I did move out as soon as they let me. There are no jobs there anyway.

reply to post by chrome413


I have a law degree so perhaps i'm jaded. I really do believe that criminal defendants get very good representation despite their economic situation. Prosecutors don't favor one kind of a lawyer over another, if they did they would be fired fairly quickly. If you think private attorneys get preferential treatment that's really not true, if anything, public defenders are granted far more leeway with the court since the court is sympathetic that they are over worked and grossly underpaid compared to attorneys in private practice. I also don't believe that public defenders don't give it their all and are unwilling to do things that private attorney's are because they are paid less (generally). If anything public defender's are some of the most committed lawyers I've ever met, and are incredibly skilled at their job. In regards to pro bono representation, when a private attorney takes a case for free, I'd be shocked if they didn't do everything within their ability to do the best job possible as no one wants to loose a very hard to obtain and very expensive law license. One issue with pro bono representation is that you may have an attorney who does nothing but transactional work, closings, contracts and the like, take a criminal case which is out of his field of specialty. Other than that, when it comes to the criminal side, I really do not think the poor are not any more prejudiced than anyone else.

The only time I'd contemplate poverty having an issue on a criminal legal proceeding is when a defendant shows up to court in jeans and a hoodie, and not a suit, jurors and judges take not of that. Jurors may improperly infer guilt due to someones educational background, where they live, the color of their skin etc. That is why it is very important to properly voir dire jurors prior to trial. I've seen a lawyer use a peremptory challenge and excuse a juror because he heard the juror say trailer trash in the hallway, even though his client was a fairly wealthy building contractor. Unfortunately when you go to trial your at the mercy of 6-12 o randomly selected people, some of then are probably a holes but hide it pretty well so you can not bounce them.

Now if you wan't to talk about civil practice, which is much different than criminal, yes poor people get screwed and screwed hard. In a civil case you do not have a right to an attorney. I've spent a lot of time volunteering at legal aid clinics and helping indigent people with family law issues, landlord tenant eviction proceedings, debt collection and bankruptcy. The odd's are way stacked against these people if they do not have competent representation. I'd say that in 60% or more of civil cases, one side goes without representation. It's not as big of a deal when both sides are unrepresented because the judge does a pretty good job of refereeing. The balance of power is grossly unfair and the wealthy have a much better chance of succeeding when one side is represented and the other is not, civilly. I've seen people with very valid claims lose on procedural issues as they simply aren't lawyers and have no idea how to present evidence, question a witness, file an answer, state a valid claim etc. Also it's very common practice to have a large business file bull# motions and prolong a case in order to leverage a settlement negotiation. I've flipped out on an attorney for threatening an indigent client that she would bring an order to show cause every month and pull him into court at every opportunity unless he agreed to pay a $2,000 credit card debt. Her case was so weak she couldn't even prove he owed the debt since she represented a debt buyer and not the original creditor. Needless to say I reminded her that if she would like to keep her law license she best not proceed in that fashion. That's why i'm a big supporter of civil gideon.

In conclusion, on the criminal side, i think it's as fair as fair can be when it comes to rich vs. poor. On the civil side, the rich have a huge advantage and its total b.s, civil gideon is the best way to equal the playing field.

It's a tough world. Not everybody that has a felony is as bad as they're claimed to be. There're lots of labels that don't belong. This world is just very complex. But I get so tired of it.

Hope you're all doing good. Keep truckin. There're some good things in life.

reply to post by DaMod


Sure, I'll kindly do that for you.

"shall not be infringed"

You're welcome.

Now please point out to me where Government can take away inalienable rights.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by 19KTankCommander

 

Your missing the point.

Essentially what i am saying is that the US government only applys rights to those it deems worthy of those rights.

Do you not see the inherit danger related to this philosophy?

What if this was happening under a different context?

edit to add, we dont live in the wild west anymore so why would i even consider that a possibility?

edit on 17-2-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

Felons are the largest disenfrancised group in the US (can't speak to other countries) and I agree it is very dangerous - as more and more of the population become felons.

The Declaration of Independence talks about Inalienable Rights. Rights that cannot be denied for any reason.

The right to vote is, imo, one of them - people, women, blacks, etc have had to fight for the right to vote since the beginning of the US when only Property Owners could vote (Republican Wet Dream).

Thanks for bringing it up here - it doesn't matter what you've done - you are a citizen and should be allowed to participate in this country other then by being a slave to business interests.

Originally posted by onequestion

I can't own a gun. Well, apparently the constitution only protects those in favor of the courts. If you can't see how this is flawed then I don't know what to tell you.

Your a convicted felon, in your own words a violent one. I wouldnt trust you with a gun either.
Imagine how much outrage that would cause? I can see the headlines already: "Violent criminals allowed to carry guns!"

You broke the law, tough. Your not getting a gun, tough.

And seriously, the whole crybaby routine of: "Wah wah I made a mistake and now its going to follow me my entire life".
Dude.. it works that way for all of us, no matter the severity of the mistake. Mistakes follow you. Deal with it, live with it and move on. No.. your still not getting a gun.

Your a better man now, honestly I believe you. I really do. But your still not getting a gun. What if you throw a hissyfit and get ill tempered and lose control? (I imagine thats what happened the first time, if not, your still not getting a gun)



In conclusion, your not getting a gun. Now go prove to yourself and the world that your changed and better man. Should you succeed in that, your still not getting a gun.


Oh. And how the hell do you expect to be protected by a constitution, a law, a system that you already proved to not respect in the first place?
"I got caught doing a crime, and now the system I tried to screw over with my crimes dosnt protect me?!"
...oh.. and your not getting a gun.

reply to post by needlenight


If this violent felon really wanted a gun do you honestly think the law is going to stop him from acquiring one?

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by 19KTankCommander

 

Your missing the point.

Essentially what i am saying is that the US government only applys rights to those it deems worthy of those rights.

Do you not see the inherit danger related to this philosophy?

What if this was happening under a different context?

edit to add, we dont live in the wild west anymore so why would i even consider that a possibility?

edit on 17-2-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

Felons are the largest disenfrancised group in the US (can't speak to other countries) and I agree it is very dangerous - as more and more of the population become felons.

The Declaration of Independence talks about Inalienable Rights. Rights that cannot be denied for any reason.

The right to vote is, imo, one of them - people, women, blacks, etc have had to fight for the right to vote since the beginning of the US when only Property Owners could vote (Republican Wet Dream).

Thanks for bringing it up here - it doesn't matter what you've done - you are a citizen and should be allowed to participate in this country other then by being a slave to business interests.

I remember a story that happened just last year in Chicago where an elderly man heard someone breaking into his home/business, he went to inspect and found a person, he shot the man but soon found himself arrested because he had a felony from a crime a very long time ago and wasn't allowed to own/use a handgun... I believe the elderly man was like 78 years old or something too.... Just a crazy mixed up world we live in today...

reply to post by jhn7537


And look at that, you're from Chicago! I guess sanity still does reside in Liberal states.

reply to post by onequestion


Wow, it is pretty bad there.