Will DC eve go back to being somewhat tough on crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

Any time someone's waving a gun around is dangerous. What I do get is that carjacking is more frightening to middle class voters, who see it as something that could possibly happen to them, whereas a stickup type robbery seems like it could only happen to the "wrong type" of people.

that is completely nonsensical. you’re not doing your cause any favors.

I think it makes sense. Car jackings are the only crime in DC where you get Twitter support from DC politicians when you commit the crime. I've seen them not only justify car jackings but also make excuses for associated murders. Seems DC residents view car jackings the way other citizens view speeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should send raids to the low income housing and search for drugs and guns, that would solve 90% of the problem as the criminals would be in prison and fear doing things like crime

There's this pesky thing call the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You should read those documents.

But too many of the authors were western white cis-hetero rich slave owning men so what they thought believed and codified needs to be interrogated disrupted and deconstructed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

Citation needed.
Any time someone's waving a gun around is dangerous. What I do get is that carjacking is more frightening to middle class voters, who see it as something that could possibly happen to them, whereas a stickup type robbery seems like it could only happen to the "wrong type" of people.

that is completely nonsensical. you’re not doing your cause any favors.

I think it makes sense. Car jackings are the only crime in DC where you get Twitter support from DC politicians when you commit the crime. I've seen them not only justify car jackings but also make excuses for associated murders. Seems DC residents view car jackings the way other citizens view speeding.

[Anonymous]

They sometimes drag the victim with the car, pin them do they die or kidnap kids left in the car. Do we have to spell it out? Omg the carjacking and ATV apologists will be the downfall of the Democrats. I used to consider myself proudly liberal no more. I’m more in the center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should send raids to the low income housing and search for drugs and guns, that would solve 90% of the problem as the criminals would be in prison and fear doing things like crime

There's this pesky thing call the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You should read those documents.

But too many of the authors were western white cis-hetero rich slave owning men so what they thought believed and codified needs to be interrogated disrupted and deconstructed.

How do you know they were cis-hetero? Why are you marginalizing queer writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

Any time someone's waving a gun around is dangerous. What I do get is that carjacking is more frightening to middle class voters, who see it as something that could possibly happen to them, whereas a stickup type robbery seems like it could only happen to the "wrong type" of people.

that is completely nonsensical. you’re not doing your cause any favors.

I think it makes sense. Car jackings are the only crime in DC where you get Twitter support from DC politicians when you commit the crime. I've seen them not only justify car jackings but also make excuses for associated murders. Seems DC residents view car jackings the way other citizens view speeding.

Please provide links to the twitter support from DC politicians for the perpetrators of carjacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They sometimes drag the victim with the car, pin them do they die or kidnap kids left in the car. Do we have to spell it out? Omg the carjacking and ATV apologists will be the downfall of the Democrats. I used to consider myself proudly liberal no more. I’m more in the center.

You're not making the case for why carjacking needs to be an offense distinct from armed robbery. Kidnapping is already a crime, if it occurs in the course of a carjacking it can be charged separately. Sometimes armed robberies go horribly wrong and innocent people get killed. This is why offenses have sentencing ranges, so that a judge can look at the facts of the case and set the sentence appropriately.

The proposal isn't to say carjacking is no longer illegal, go crazy. It's to say it's no longer a criminal offense distinct from armed robbery. There's no reason to believe that sentences for carjackers would even go down, they'd just be charged under a different section of the criminal code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You're not making the case for why carjacking needs to be an offense distinct from armed robbery. Kidnapping is already a crime, if it occurs in the course of a carjacking it can be charged separately. Sometimes armed robberies go horribly wrong and innocent people get killed. This is why offenses have sentencing ranges, so that a judge can look at the facts of the case and set the sentence appropriately.

The proposal isn't to say carjacking is no longer illegal, go crazy. It's to say it's no longer a criminal offense distinct from armed robbery. There's no reason to believe that sentences for carjackers would even go down, they'd just be charged under a different section of the criminal code.

You're right, but you're missing the forest from the trees, here. The point is that drivers are angry their privileged position in the DC transportation food chain is being taken down a peg. Having carjacking being classified as an armed robbery tells DC drivers that they aren't special and should be treated the same as everyone else, whether or not they own a car.

And they hate that, more than anything. Good job, DC, for once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're not making the case for why carjacking needs to be an offense distinct from armed robbery. Kidnapping is already a crime, if it occurs in the course of a carjacking it can be charged separately. Sometimes armed robberies go horribly wrong and innocent people get killed. This is why offenses have sentencing ranges, so that a judge can look at the facts of the case and set the sentence appropriately.

The proposal isn't to say carjacking is no longer illegal, go crazy. It's to say it's no longer a criminal offense distinct from armed robbery. There's no reason to believe that sentences for carjackers would even go down, they'd just be charged under a different section of the criminal code.

You're right, but you're missing the forest from the trees, here. The point is that drivers are angry their privileged position in the DC transportation food chain is being taken down a peg. Having carjacking being classified as an armed robbery tells DC drivers that they aren't special and should be treated the same as everyone else, whether or not they own a car.

And they hate that, more than anything. Good job, DC, for once.

I'm sticking by my original position that middle class people can envision themselves being the victim of a carjacking, but feel that armed robbery only happens to the "wrong people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They sometimes drag the victim with the car, pin them do they die or kidnap kids left in the car. Do we have to spell it out? Omg the carjacking and ATV apologists will be the downfall of the Democrats. I used to consider myself proudly liberal no more. I’m more in the center.

Who? The only people I ever see defending or cheering on DC's carjackings and ATVs are anonymous trolls on message boards.

[Anonymous]

I think there can be a middle ground. Crack down on carjackings and ATVs, but don't let the hammer come down for silly stuff like weed, littering, loitering, hanging air fresheners, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there can be a middle ground. Crack down on carjackings and ATVs, but don't let the hammer come down for silly stuff like weed, littering, loitering, hanging air fresheners, etc.

What you're describing is the purview of the executive branch, not the Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there can be a middle ground. Crack down on carjackings and ATVs, but don't let the hammer come down for silly stuff like weed, littering, loitering, hanging air fresheners, etc.

What you're describing is the purview of the executive branch, not the Council.

The executive branch is following the rules set forth by the council, which hinder them from more aggressively law enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sometimes drag the victim with the car, pin them do they die or kidnap kids left in the car. Do we have to spell it out? Omg the carjacking and ATV apologists will be the downfall of the Democrats. I used to consider myself proudly liberal no more. I’m more in the center.

You're not making the case for why carjacking needs to be an offense distinct from armed robbery. Kidnapping is already a crime, if it occurs in the course of a carjacking it can be charged separately. Sometimes armed robberies go horribly wrong and innocent people get killed. This is why offenses have sentencing ranges, so that a judge can look at the facts of the case and set the sentence appropriately.

The proposal isn't to say carjacking is no longer illegal, go crazy. It's to say it's no longer a criminal offense distinct from armed robbery. There's no reason to believe that sentences for carjackers would even go down, they'd just be charged under a different section of the criminal code.

because carjacking is a different and more dangerous and emotionally harmful crime dumb*ss. everyone sees this except you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're not making the case for why carjacking needs to be an offense distinct from armed robbery. Kidnapping is already a crime, if it occurs in the course of a carjacking it can be charged separately. Sometimes armed robberies go horribly wrong and innocent people get killed. This is why offenses have sentencing ranges, so that a judge can look at the facts of the case and set the sentence appropriately.

The proposal isn't to say carjacking is no longer illegal, go crazy. It's to say it's no longer a criminal offense distinct from armed robbery. There's no reason to believe that sentences for carjackers would even go down, they'd just be charged under a different section of the criminal code.

You're right, but you're missing the forest from the trees, here. The point is that drivers are angry their privileged position in the DC transportation food chain is being taken down a peg. Having carjacking being classified as an armed robbery tells DC drivers that they aren't special and should be treated the same as everyone else, whether or not they own a car.

And they hate that, more than anything. Good job, DC, for once.

I'm sticking by my original position that middle class people can envision themselves being the victim of a carjacking, but feel that armed robbery only happens to the "wrong people."

that is an absolutely bizarre accusation.