PDA

View Full Version : What's the intention of law for "No bulletproof vest for felons"?


BAGunner
02-08-2011, 5:52 PM
Can someone shed some light?

Some Guy
02-08-2011, 5:58 PM
Anti-Hollywood bank robbery feel good stuff would be my guess.

QQQ
02-08-2011, 6:01 PM
Because they want to start banning certain people first, then move on to other groups until there's an outright ban.

It's part of a long-term strategy.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 6:18 PM
To make felons now-law abiding vulnerable to being killed by their former colleagues. Death penalty by proxy, a favorite of the .gov. See the years of prohibition of effective self-defense civil gun owners get for daring to be able to defend themselves, Theseus being our own forum's example.

CCWFacts
02-08-2011, 6:32 PM
Because they want to start banning certain people first, then move on to other groups until there's an outright ban.

It's part of a long-term strategy.

Exactly. Ideally we should all be fitted with pacemaker-like devices that have radio receivers so we can be decommissioned whenever necessary.

753X0
02-08-2011, 7:05 PM
To make felons now-law abiding vulnerable to being killed by their former colleagues. Death penalty by proxy, a favorite of the .gov. See the years of prohibition of effective self-defense civil gun owners get for daring to be able to defend themselves, Theseus being our own forum's example.

To expand just a bit, if a 211 (robbery) team hits a liquor store, and the counter guy caps one of them, the surviving BG will be charged w/ murder under the felony murder rule.

Blackhawk556
02-08-2011, 7:34 PM
The idea is that if the cop shoots the bad guy/s, they will drop right away instead of continuing to fight.

Blackhawk556
02-08-2011, 7:40 PM
^^^I forgot to add, what's going to stop bad guys from actually wearing one? Not sure if this is law already, but they should make harsh rules on people who wear vests during a criminal act. If an honest citizen is pulled over and the cop notices he's wearing a vest it shouldn't matter.

Shady
02-08-2011, 7:45 PM
probably a weak attempt to sway the felon away from any situation where he would use one


typicle ignorant brady bunch type mentality

Packy14
02-08-2011, 7:51 PM
because criminals are going to now not wear a bulletproof vest or use high cap mags during their crime..because they are law abiding...wait...their criminals, they don't care about the law. *shrugs* dumb law I guess :)

Crom
02-08-2011, 7:57 PM
Because they want to start banning certain people first, then move on to other groups until there's an outright ban.

It's part of a long-term strategy.

Exactly.

captbilly
02-08-2011, 8:20 PM
I think the intent is fairly clear, to keep felons from protecting themselves from law enforcement, but the logic of making such a law is highly questionable. Keep in mind that a felon has lost his/her rights under the law, so normal legal protections no longer hold. A similar law for non-felons would likely not pass constitutional muster. And then there is the absurdity of trying to enforce such a law. I can't really think of a situation where someone would be stopped for wearing a "bulletproof" vest, so about the only way you would be found out would be if you were arrested. Then I suppose this law would provide the police with a reason for holding a convicted felon, even if no other charge would stick. I have heard that part of the argument against legalizing some drugs is that it would take away one of law enforcements primary paths to holding/convicting someone for whom there is insufficient evidence of any other crime.

curtisfong
02-08-2011, 8:46 PM
2 words.

Sentence enhancement.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 8:51 PM
Because everyone knows that criminals obey the law when they're breaking the law ... :rolleyes:

Stonewalker
02-08-2011, 8:53 PM
2 words.

Sentence enhancement.

You nailed it.

"Another law that carries a harsh prison sentence? Senator, you're a genius!"

Joe
02-08-2011, 8:59 PM
I'm a california legislator. Felons follow the law

five.five-six
02-08-2011, 9:05 PM
2 words.

Sentence enhancement.

while this is a positive aspect, I doubt any of out HACk legislators can even pronounce "Sentence enhancement"


most likely it's the first step in creeping incrementalism, or an attempt to prevent this from happening again


ZL9fnVtz_lc

tyrist
02-08-2011, 9:30 PM
Can someone shed some light?

So you can keep them locked up on as many possible charges. Ballistic vests are frequently found in possession of convicted felons anyway. This just allows you to book them for it when they already tossed the guns and drugs.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 9:39 PM
To expand just a bit, if a 211 (robbery) team hits a liquor store, and the counter guy caps one of them, the surviving BG will be charged w/ murder under the felony murder rule.

What does the felony murder rule have to do with this?

Wherryj
02-09-2011, 1:06 PM
Can someone shed some light?

While I personally believe that most felons deserve to be shot, this one sort of eludes me as well-even when trying to decipher what the politicians were thinking.

Is a felon going to walk into a bank with a ballistic vest and NO weapon (after all, those are prohibited) and somehow rob the place? Or is it more likely that a felon would, gasp, violate the law and have a firearm? If they are in for two felonies, what is a third involving bulletproof vests?

I personally don't get it, but that's because I'm trying to see the logic behind it when there is none.

Wherryj
02-09-2011, 1:08 PM
I think the intent is fairly clear, to keep felons from protecting themselves from law enforcement, but the logic of making such a law is highly questionable. Keep in mind that a felon has lost his/her rights under the law, so normal legal protections no longer hold. A similar law for non-felons would likely not pass constitutional muster. And then there is the absurdity of trying to enforce such a law. I can't really think of a situation where someone would be stopped for wearing a "bulletproof" vest, so about the only way you would be found out would be if you were arrested. Then I suppose this law would provide the police with a reason for holding a convicted felon, even if no other charge would stick. I have heard that part of the argument against legalizing some drugs is that it would take away one of law enforcements primary paths to holding/convicting someone for whom there is insufficient evidence of any other crime.

Then why is it that when they are transporting a particularly nasty felon (like the guy who was released from prison then raped an 8 year old while on probation) is transported with a....wait....bulletproof vest.

Who gets the charge when this happens? Is it the "accused" or the officer that placed it on him?

jl123
02-09-2011, 1:09 PM
Easier for cops shooting them in the back to kill them.

snobord99
02-09-2011, 6:48 PM
To expand just a bit, if a 211 (robbery) team hits a liquor store, and the counter guy caps one of them, the surviving BG will be charged w/ murder under the felony murder rule.

I agree with N6ATF, what does felony murder have to do with this?

Plus, you're wrong. In CA (and I believe many other jurisdictions), there's generally no felony murder where the victims kill an accomplice.

masameet
02-09-2011, 8:00 PM
I think you're mistaken, snobord99. BGs do get charged with felony murder if their accomplices are killed by their intended victims or bystanders are killed. They're charged under California's Provocative Act doctrine. Here are some examples of BGs being charged with murder:

Homeowner kills BGs (http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/history/topic/84738-1.html)

Robbery suspect's conviction of cousin's death upheld (http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/conc111309.htm)

They even get charged with murder if they had no intention of killing anyone:

Cop killer gets life without parole (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7918818)

Old4eyes
02-09-2011, 8:33 PM
Maybe it's a way to speed up the death penalty. After all, California is still attempting to get the death chamber OK'd after being shutdown as being cruel and inhumane.

snobord99
02-09-2011, 9:09 PM
I think you're mistaken, snobord99. BGs do get charged with felony murder if their accomplices are killed by their intended victims or bystanders are killed. They're charged under California's Provocative Act doctrine. Here are some examples of BGs being charged with murder:

Homeowner kills BGs (http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/history/topic/84738-1.html)

Robbery suspect's conviction of cousin's death upheld (http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/conc111309.htm)

They even get charged with murder if they had no intention of killing anyone:

Cop killer gets life without parole (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7918818)

Provocative Act doctrine is kind of the exception to the exception (which is why I threw "generally" in there...and why I'm about to do it again :p). Generally, there's no felony murder if a victim kills an accomplice; however, if the felony in question is "inherently dangerous" and the victim's response is a natural and probable response, then yes, there could be felony murder then (it's a question of whether the defendant's actions were a "proximate cause" of the death).

People v. Concha, 47 Cal. 4th 653 (case you cited) - initial felony attempted was a murder, accomplice was killed, defendant could be held liable for the killing

People v. Washington (1965) 62 Cal 2d 777 - initial felony attempted was a robbery, accomplice killed, court found defendant could not be liable for felony murder

He was talking about a 211 robbery and the Provocative Act rule is an exception to the exception for felony murder which is why I said that there's generally no felony murder under these circumstances. Good catch though.