Criminals can deduct costs of crime

[alwynsw]

How outrageous can things get?

<snip>It is often said that crime doesn't pay, but a Roermond man might beg to differ, having recently been refunded EUR 2,000 for the pistol he used to commit an armed robbery.

In sentencing the 46-year-old man to four years jail last week, Breda Court also ordered him to repay the EUR 6,600 he stole from a bank in the Brabant town of Chaam. But the man had the price of the pistol he bought for the robbery deducted from the amount he was forced to repay.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=16110&name=Criminals+can+deduct+costs+of+crime

Tell me again about how enlightened Europe is about guns and crime.

[sui generis]

1. first of all they have a lot fewer than every yahoo here

that's a start.

[alwynsw]

2. Web portals own guns?!?

whodathunkit?

I'll keep my guns and leave crime as a non-deductible. Thanks.

[sui generis]

3. oh, I forgot where I was

talking to people who can't stick to the topic.

s-c-a-r-y criminals under every rock. don't know when I'll need to pull out a gun and blow one away.

[alwynsw]

10. Topic?

Try again. Your agenda is showing.

[sui generis]

13. I guess you were looking in a mirror when you typed that

no I'm not a gun grabber - and I don't have an agenda. I just mostly despise how some people wouldn't have a life or anything to talk about if it weren't for guns. People get irrational over it, start sending around emails about how some guy farted in the grocery store and a little old lady pulled a gatlin gun out of her purse and blew his criminal ass away and don't we all feel lucky that she was able to do that, one less criminal in the world, etc. etc., they're all basically the same stupid story circulated by the NRA.

[slackmaster]

15. And that's why you are in this thread, right?

So you can blather on with hyperbolic remarks about guns, which isn't actually the topic at hand.

:dunce:

[alwynsw]

16. What can I say?

You hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

23. I think dork is snider (snidelier?) than dunce

I've never understood why you gun control supporters are so rude to people who disagree with them.

[sui generis]

24. okay, back to civility

and an apology with an objective explanation.

Slack it seems like I made an observation here originally and the response I got was obtuse. Then when I replied that the response was obtuse I got back further derision. It was not a conversation. Then you jumped in and put a "dunce" on the end of your comment. That's not civil - it was sniping, and I am equally guilty.

I would say that the rudeness on both sides escalates. I'll give you an example. Even just now you said "you gun control supporters". I guess I could read that anyone who isn't a "gun control supporter" is for the ability of anyone to buy, carry or use a gun anywhere at any time, age, or mental condition.

We both know it's not that black or white and I don't think you'd want to spend time defending a point of view that I assumed about you without first trying to find out what you really think.

To stay on topic and answer the question, both sides, you, and me, love to needle a little here and a little there. I don't want to be blindly called a "gun control supporter" any more than you want to blindly be called a gun anarchist. I have had very civil discussions with gun rights advocates, but nine out of ten think that if you have a dissenting opinion you are somehow weak or "too" liberal, or completely biased the other direction.

And I have a pet peeve too about the "defensive gun" stories that I let percolate into here, and it is that every time you hear one of these stories it's all about how someone Shot The Criminal. The message is clear - for some people finding a criminal to sport hunt with a gun is justifiable big game. It's not about using guns to deter crime, it's clearly about shooting someone. I'm serious, be objective and take a look at the stories that flow through here. It's just an odd way of phrasing the "necessity" of gun ownership, don't you think?

Okay, truce. I know we probably have different opinions on the topic but I really can be a nice dragon if you don't poke me with a stick.

[slackmaster]

25. Allow me to offer a suggestion to help you understand another POV

The message is clear - for some people finding a criminal to sport hunt with a gun is justifiable big game. It's not about using guns to deter crime, it's clearly about shooting someone. I'm serious, be objective and take a look at the stories that flow through here. It's just an odd way of phrasing the "necessity" of gun ownership, don't you think?

I think your reaction is understandable. Very often these DGU stories are presented as some kind of glorious victory; in reality the best outcome you can hope for in a confrontation involving deadly force is to walk away from it still in possession of that which you had when you got into it. You can never come out ahead. There may be an initial victorious rush, but any normal person is bound to have mixed feelings about what he or she has done even if there is no doubt that it was morally right.

If you have never done so I suggest that you take a bona fide self-defense course of any kind - Empty hand, edged weapons, firearm, or phaser. A good instructor will spend a lot of time on what is likely to happen to you after you have won the initial fight: You may get sued, you may be defamed, you may get run out of your job or your home, and you may face criminal charges. A good self-defense course will coach you on how to behave when the police show up, to make their jobs easier and keep you out of trouble.

Most of us who support the right to own and use firearms actually do understand the moral responsibility that comes with use of a weapon. We are educated, intelligent, responsible adults. The last thing most of us want to do is to take another person's life, and I can't recall anyone calling gun ownership a necessity. It's not about wanting to shoot someone, it's about retaining the ability to do so if it becomes necessary. I have no desire to carry weapons everywhere I go, but my earthquake preparedness kit does include them.

For me owning guns is mostly about collecting things that interest me because of their value, quality, and connection with history. I'm applying for a federal gun collector's license BTW. It will give me the ability to acquire curio and relic long guns without having to go through California's overly restrictive buying process with its financial costs and pointless waiting period.

[sui generis]

26. thanks - I understand your POV

there are some people on both sides of the fence that are pretty extreme though - I guess until you talk for a while it's hard to figure out who is who.

I have been in hardcore martial arts for the past 25 years, and not foo foo showy stuff - I am certain that unless someone is some distance from me and has already pulled the trigger that there is absolutely no weapon that I couldn't take away from someone in half a heartbeat. On most days I can land between 2 and 3 sunk strikes per second, including 360's, with my rear, spinning hook and roundhouse kicks landing at well over 900 psi. In contrast most people require at least 1.25 seconds to react to stimulus, and more to actually move a weapon, so the advantage in nearly all weapons fights belongs to me.

If someone engaged me in a fight, particularly someone who wasn't equally trained, for me to land a full punch or full footwork would likely be a grievous or fatal injury to them. Even sparring is dangerous if we're not pulling punches/kicks and we're conditioned to tolerate a bit more pain and injury than most, and we know each other's fighting styles and weaknesses. After years of different disciplines American style kickboxing with some Thai influence seems to be the most resiliant and practical art, without a lot of mystical hoo haw.

However, I have never gone looking for confrontation. Oddly enough, it's never come to me either in any way that I couldn't get out of without using violence, but I get what you are saying about being prepared for violence, because once you get out of your gated community suburbs and especially outside the developed world, it's not always a very friendly place out there. I have done extensive travel for work around the "developing" world and I know firsthand how little regard for human wellbeing and life that some humans have. Even as a queer boy I haven't had problems with anyone - most people who would pick on someone for being queer are like dogs: they only chase you when you run and they are quite surprised when you don't.

I don't have a problem with gun collectors preserving the history of the gun. I do have a problem with people hunting rabbits and deer with AK47's. And I think that most people that actually end up using a semi-automatic weapon on another human (outside of law enforcement) are not adequately trained to use them and are for the most part not conscientious about it. You sound rational - that's not always the case with some people. I think that it's easy to imagine the worst case scenario and assume everyone has an "agenda" and so the discussions can get pretty heated sometimes, and are anything but constructive. Thanks for coming back out of the fog with me.

-sui

[Billy Ruffian]

27. Hoping to keep the tone civil,

I've got some questions.

Could you relate any experience you have with firearms? I ask this because of the statements in your last paragraph.

An AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon, and is very highly regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act. I don't know of any jurisdiction in the US that allows hunting with a full auto weapon.

As far as hunting with a semi-auto, some folks prefer a semi-auto because the action of the semi-auto absorbs more recoil than a bolt action in the same caliber. Also, when hunting with a semi-auto, there are restrictions (again, in most jurisdictions) on the size of the magazine you can use.

Also, I don't see any difference between using a revolver or semi-auto for self defense. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, to be sure, but I don't know of any additional training for a semi-auto handgun that would require more than a few minutes to cover.

That's enough for now .. more in later exchanges.

Thanks

[sui generis]

28. I have cousins in Kansas who pay no attention to the 1934

firearms act, and they hunt every year. Not bad people, but dressing a deer that's been blown to bits with inappropriate ordnance is quite an exercise. Would you like some hamburger to go with that venison steak?

Regarding self-defense, I'm referring to people who feel obligated to shoot someone five or six times because they didn't immediately fall down hollywood dead on the first shot. I think most people don't realize how long it takes someone with a gunshot wound to really die, much less stop thrashing around moaning and shitting themselves in the process of becoming "incapacitated".

Those kinds of things aren't covered very effectively in additional training until you see it live, and when someone has a bunch of bullets in them it's a lot harder for the doctors to keep them from dying. A semi auto makes it a lot easier to overreact in a real life situation - that was my only point.

[Billy Ruffian]

29. Are they hunting with full auto weapons?

Is that legal in Kansas? If not, I submit that they are illegal poachers, and I hope they get caught, and receive appropriate punishment.

If they're using a semi-auto, and choosing to fire multiple shots, that's their business, as long as they're complying with the hunting regulations in the jurisdiction (btw, I did some looking in NC, and could not find a magazine limit for rifles when hunting deer.) Does it really matter what the weapon is if they've shot the deer multiple times? Would the result be any different if they'd been using a lever action, or a bolt action? A bolt action can be pretty quick (although I'll grant not as fast as a semi-auto)

As far as the self defense scenario, it isn't any harder or take much longer to empty a revolver, either. Most self defense caliber revolvers come in five, six or seven rounds.

If the use of lethal force is justified, then it's justified. There is no burden on the defender to stop after each shot and analyze whether the threat is over. There are many cases of people being shot, even with wounds that will eventually be fatal, and still being able to inflict great harm (you should read the analysis of the shootout the FBI had in Miami. Two agents were killed by one of the criminals that had received a fatal wound)

I truly have a lot of difficulty understanding why some people feel that semi-autos are bad, and non-semi-autos are good.

(on edit ... should we start a new thread for this? It has branched off quite a bit from the original thread topic)

[MrSandman]

30. If it's worth shooting, it's worth shooting twice...nt

[sui generis]

31. couple of answers

My cousins hunt on their own land. Technically that's not poaching if it's done in season. What gets killed gets eaten.

Regarding use of lethal force: I am sure you can ask twenty people and get twenty different criteria. I just want to reduce my personal exposure to other people's judgement or lack of judgement.

I don't always think of people using lethal force as valid "defenders", and for the most part if they can't evaluate threat accurately I don't think they should be handling a gun. I understand that a fatally wounded person can be just as deadly as a healthy person, but how many ordinary citizens are going to find themselves in a firefight at the grocery store?

I still think that for some people the idea that you live a life that is so close to the edge of lawlessness that you are required to carry a gun to defend yourself at all times, and that you will most likely be called upon to use lethal force when forced to use a gun seems a bit paranoid . . . unless you are in law enforcement, or live on the edge of civilization. I'm not making a blanket statement here, just an observation. I think that a very few people can really claim that situation, and the rest are just out looking to shoot someone. Big game hunting. And great business for the gun manufacturers.

Not trying to be trite or offensive, but if absolute power corrupts absolutely, you can be sure some people view the ownership of a weapon of such absolutes as something as necessary as breathing. It's hard to make this point without offending someone, especially rational, intelligent, responsible people who want rational legislation on either side, but it is what I think. Some of the "flavors" of gun rights advocacy verge on anarchy and I'm sure you've heard some completely whacko things too.

Everyone wants blanket one-size-fits all rules, and those kinds of rules inevitably short change everybody. The fact is that where gun control is concerned both sides have to compromise for the same reason: safety and freedom, and extremism on either side serves no one well. That means some inconvenience for gun owners on one side and accepting life with responsible gun owners on the other side, and I think it's a bit more of a balanced and rational approach that everyone can live with.

Well bedtime for me - I spar for an hour at 6:00 a.m. tomorrow, must have my wits about me and not be too creaky.

[Billy Ruffian]

32. We're doing well here

keeping the tone civil.

I have a different outlook. Perhaps it's because I've less (and no current) experience in martial arts, and I'm out of shape and lots slower than I was at 25, etc.

I don't consider being armed to be paranoid. In my view, it's no more paranoid than locking my doors, esp. at night and when we're out of the house, locking my car, always, keeping fire extinguishers ready throughout the house, and all the other safety precautions I take.

As a martial artist, you most likely are familiar with situational awareness. I try to always be alert and aware of my surroundings. Not paranoid, just alert. One firearms writer calls it 'Condition Orange' (on a scale of White, Orange, Yellow, Red) Being in condition White is just plain unsafe. Being in condition white, you'll not notice the careless driver coming up to the intersection, or even the wet tile floor just inside an office building when it's raining outside.

I've decided that for me, a firearm is a good choice. I hope I never have to use one again in self defense (and very grateful that the one time I did, I didn't have to shoot) I'm certainly not out big game hunting, but I am prepared to use lethal force to protect myself and my family.

On the other subject, are your cousins using fullauto or semiauto on their deer hunts? If they're not breaking any laws, but they're mangling their target, that's their problem, isn't it?

[sui generis]

33. didn't mean to imply you were paranoid!

:D

Not at all - you definitely sound like a reasonable and aware fellow, but, at least here in some parts of Texas there are people who are packing in church and at Six Flags, expecting the proverbial boogeyman to show up and start a hostage situation. I suppose I probably shouldn't spend so much time on the extremes; it sounds like I'm making them my boogeyman. In a way I've earned a little bit of my own paranoia - I caught a bullet with my leg in 1984, fired by someone who should never have had access to a firearm. As it happens, the guy was across the street in NYC on a crowded rush-hour sidewalk down by St. Vincent's having a brain meltdown schizo-paranoid episode and several other people caught bullets too; having a firearm in my possession would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the experience from happening. In my personal experience it's not the rational guys who get you . . .

I think the cousins use whatever "fun" stuff they can get their hands on - please don't get the idea that I'm related to the crew from Deliverance though. I think they experiment because they can - but although they are good people in general they're also on skating on the edge of acceptability and poor judgement and I'm sure I don't really want to know what is in their "private" collections. They are quite enthusiastic about them.

[Billy Ruffian]

34. Texas has had its CHL program for 10 years

or so (I'd have to go look it up, but I *think* they had it before NC)

Of those that are carrying to church and Six Flags, and anywhere else, have there been many incidents of CHL holders going off on a shooting spree like you experienced? Although there have been revocations of CHLs across the country, and there have been some CHL holders that have mis-used their firearm, the experience in the 34 shall-issue states seems to be that CHL holders are at least as good as the general population, if not better.

Again, my outlook is that the firearm is an emergency tool, and you don't know when or where an emergency will happen. My choice is to have a firearm available whenever I can.

In your NYC incident, although you might not have been able to do anything, what if an armed person had been near the criminal?

I won't make the claim that an armed citizen *would* have stopped the attack earlier, but given the law in NY and NYC, there was almost no chance that there would be someone that *could* stop the attack.

[sui generis]

35. well define "near"

if twenty people pulled out guns in the crowd and started shooting at where the sound of gunshots came from . . .

It's not law, it's physics. You'd have to outlaw crowded sidewalks and echoes; NYC gets pretty crammed at rush hours, I mean it's a shoulder to shoulder moving clot of humanity.

There's a really good reason the law is different there than in less densely populated areas. Even a firearm accidentally discharged inside an apartment could potentially have deadly consequences no matter where it was pointing. It's one thing to trust your own judgement as someone with expertise, but quite another sobering thought to consider how many people out there have really poor judgement, or even just have passing moments of really poor judgement.

I have joked before that gun laws were made for people like me when I'm having a bad day, but the truth is that they are made with a certain kind of person in mind every day, and responsible people end up caught in what is supposed to be a safety net.

I do empathize with your POV - for the same reasons that I get irritated whenever the "lowest common denominator" is used to determine what I can and can't do myself as a responsible adult. The hard part is just making a reasonable case for reasable measures for either "side" clearly to people who vote the law without bullying and threatening and the inevitable bad blood and resentment that arises between both sides.

[Fescue4u]

36. Yes I've noticed how people can get irrational

Sometimes its quite humorous.

[iverglas]

4. the law of perverse effects ... of the law

If we read just a wee bit more than what someone chose to cut and paste, apparently in order to create some impression or other (some people will just believe anything, after all, and get all outraged over the most insignificant gnats while chowing down on the most enormous camels), we see this:

He said the law stipulates that the financial situation of the bank robber after the sentence is imposed must be the same as what it was prior to the crime. "It sounds a little bit strange, but that is the law," he said.

The obvious intended effect of the law is to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. I'd imagine that it might also cover things like serial killers writing best sellers and pocketing the proceeds.

This decision is obviously an example of a perverse effect -- an effect hardly likely to have been intended, let alone approved, by the legislature that passed it. One might suspect that the court that made the decision is hoping that it comes to the attention of the legislature that made the law, and that it will do a little fine tuning.

[sui generis]

6. good post /nt

[goju]

8. Huh?

It appears that this is not a perverse effect at all, and indeed it is intended.

If we read even a bit further...

"Another example would be the costs a criminal incurs in a cannabis plantation. If the plantation is seized by police, the criminal can identify to authorities what costs were incurred in setting up the crop and gain compensation."

Doesnt sound like this is the first instance of criminals profiting from their crime. But maybe Im just outraged over all these gnats, eh?

[iverglas]

11. have fun

Feel free to read farther. And to read out of context, if it amuses you.

The excerpt you reproduced in absolutely no way demonstrates that this was the INTENDED effect of the legislation.

What it is, is "another example" of what the effect of this (interpretation of) the legislation MIGHT BE.

I should add that I would be in no way convinced that this is a valid interpretation of the legislation in any event.

He said the law stipulates that the financial situation of the bank robber after the sentence is imposed must be the same as what it was prior to the crime.

Prior to the crime -- which was bank robbery, in the instance in question -- the individual had bought a firearm. The purchase of the firearm was not part of the crime for which he was sentenced, apparently. So, in fact, reimbursing him for the cost of the firearm put him in a better financial situation than he was in prior to the crime, since he got back the EUR2,000 he'd paid for it. I'd say the court was just plain wrong, no matter how the law were interpreted.

And before we wander off on any other tangents, he was presumably not legally entitled to be in possession of the firearm, let alone to sell it -- so it had zero market value. So I'd fail to see where he'd be entitled to compensation for it even if he were being sentenced for possession of it. Kinda like you can't sue for a gambling debt, right? No compensation for losing something that your possession of constituted a crime.

I'm looking for genuine sources for Dutch law ... here's something interesting:

http://www.government.nl/index.jsp

CPB: 'More police means safer public' Between 1996 and 2003, the likelihood of being the victim of a crime in the Netherlands fell by 10% thanks to the recruitment of extra police officers, concludes the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB).

Just by the bye, and noting that no concealed weapon carrying permits were involved.

Anyhow, there's a published English translation of the Dutch Penal Code, but none on line:

The Dutch Penal Code
translated by Louise Rayar & Stafford Wadsworth in collaboration with Mona Cheung ... <et al.>; revision by Hans Lensing.
(Littleton, Colo.: F.B. Rothman, 1997.)
KKM 3794 .31881 .A52

Maybe you have access to the book and can tell us what it says. In the meantime, I'll rely on my knowledge of relevant and related things, and some of that famous common sense.

A law that "stipulates that the financial situation of <a criminal> after the sentence is imposed must be the same as what it was prior to the crime" is so hugely obviously a law enacted to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes that I couldn't begin to explain that fact to someone who claimed not to see it.

"Another example would be the costs a criminal incurs in a cannabis plantation. If the plantation is seized by police, the criminal can identify to authorities what costs were incurred in setting up the crop and gain compensation."
Doesnt sound like this is the first instance of criminals profiting from their crime.

Actually that is exactly what it sounds like. Another example would be the costs incurred in a cannabis plantation -- not IS the costs incurred. Sounds to me exactly like a hypothetical example of what the effect of interpreting the law in this way could conceivably be.

If this isn't the first instance of criminals profiting from their crimes (in this way, presumably), then why is it news?


But maybe Im just outraged over all these gnats, eh?

Well, it sounds to me like a few folks are working themselves up into a boiling fwet over the laws in somebody else's country.

Tsk.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

18. yessireebob

... the law was indeed worded in such a way as to ensure criminals will profit from their crime, not the other way around, as you want to pretend.

Gosh, I don't think I said any such thing, let alone pretended it. Obviously, the law was *not* worded to guarantee that criminals will *not* profit from their crimes. That would seem to be the problem. As you seem to be saying.

They guaranteed the very thing the bill might have been intended to prevent.

Yup, just like the Canada Pension Plan legislation guaranteed that people who murder their spouses will receive widowed-spouse survivor benefits for the rest of their lives.

I'm not seeing any reason to believe that this was not an unintended perverse effect of the legislation. I'm not seeing anything in your rather carefully worded assertion that suggests you do either, actually, let alone what basis you would have for claiming that if you did.

You do seem to have backpedalled from your original assertion though, I must acknowledge. That was:

It appears that this is not a perverse effect at all, and indeed it is intended.

Rather a far cry from:

They guaranteed the very thing the bill might have been intended to prevent.

... I'd say. But maybe you thought I wouldn't notice, eh?

[alwynsw]

9. Mind reader now?

Intent is tough enough to prove, but I'm asking you to do just that.

I, you, we may think that was the original intent, but I'd like to see proof.

Incidentally, 2,000 Euros for a handgun? At last check, that's almost $2,600.00 U.S. I wonder what it was.

[iverglas]

12. how about another fun example ...

of the unintended consequences / perverse effects of laws?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/101_2000-05-19/han101_1055-e.htm

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo-Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, criminals should not be allowed to profit from their crimes, especially convicted killers. Yet in Canada not only does the government allow convicted killers to profit from their crimes, it pays them at the expense of the victims and victims' families.

If a husband, wife or common law partner is convicted of murdering his or her spouse they can still claim their victims' benefits. Convicted murderers can draw Canada pension plan benefits from their victims while enjoying the comfort of their prison cell. This is unacceptable.

To right this wrong, I will be addressing this issue when I table a private member's bill in the House. My bill will amend the Canada pension plan to exclude convicted murderers from collecting benefits from their victims.

In summary, killers in Canada must not be allowed to profit from their crimes.

Yikes. Bump off your spouse, collect his/her public pension plan benefits ... because the plan provides for survivor benefits for spouses of dead people.

Don't know what became of the bill, unfortunately.

I, you, we may think that was the original intent, but I'd like to see proof.

Well you just feel entirely free to go find it. You'll need to know when the provision of the Dutch Penal Code in question was enacted, and then find transcripts of the debates of the Dutch Parliament in which it was considered, I guess.

I'll bet that if you scrutinize the debates of the Cdn Parliament prior to the enactment of the survivor benefits provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, you won't be finding anyone saying "let's make sure we pay people for bumping off their spouses", eh?

You may think there are no faeries at the bottom of my garden, but I'd like to see proof.

[alwynsw]

17. Still waiting. n/t

[slackmaster]

5. Al Capone's first conviction was for tax evasion

He had failed to declare income from illegal activities.

[jody]

7. It was a legitimate "cost of business". n/t