Shooting at Columbiana Mall

[DeeDave]

When you Defund and make the Police a little hesitant to make arrests, you can expect this.

Columbia and Richland County police haven't been defunded. They've got equipment that would make the military of a small country jealous.

Columbia and Richland police arrest a LOT of people.

Instead of working on bail reform, or attacking sentencing issues, our conservative legislature spent a lot of time this year arguing about culture war issues so they can gin up their rubes for the election.

Florence County: Deonte Hamilton, who was charged with firing a gun into a building this year, was charged in October 2019 with voluntary manslaughter and released on a $7,500 surety bond, according to court records. According to authorities, Hamilton was in a fight where a gun was fired and killed Keith Kevin Larry.

The following day, he was charged with assault/attemped murder and given a $7,500 bond, according to court records.

https://www.wbtw.com/news/pee-dee/o...how-shooting-suspects-are-able-to-leave-jail/

 

[cockofdawn]

Columbia and Richland County police haven't been defunded. They've got equipment that would make the military of a small country jealous.

Columbia and Richland police arrest a LOT of people.

Instead of working on bail reform, or attacking sentencing issues, our conservative legislature spent a lot of time this year arguing about culture war issues so they can gin up their rubes for the election.

Florence County: Deonte Hamilton, who was charged with firing a gun into a building this year, was charged in October 2019 with voluntary manslaughter and released on a $7,500 surety bond, according to court records. According to authorities, Hamilton was in a fight where a gun was fired and killed Keith Kevin Larry.

The following day, he was charged with assault/attemped murder and given a $7,500 bond, according to court records.

https://www.wbtw.com/news/pee-dee/o...how-shooting-suspects-are-able-to-leave-jail/

AS A F**KING WHOLE. all Criminals are now emboldened by the "Police are all bad" rhetoric of the left and BLM!!

 

[DeeDave]

AS A F**KING WHOLE. all Criminals are now emboldened by the "Police are all bad" rhetoric of the left and BLM!!

Yes, criminals are focused on people saying "police are all bad" and that's all they needed to commit crimes because we all know South Carolina- who has seen a dramatic rise in crime rates- is so anti police. That's it. You nailed it. 😄

Maybe the right wing legislature could actually work toward bail reform - but, like you, they had rather talk about nonsense than do something about it - which they could easily do - but have chosen not to do anything.

Maybe the right wing legislature could get serious for once.

Under current law in South Carolina, local law enforcement can only charge someone with illegal possession of a firearm as a first offense, no matter how many times a perpetrator with a prior conviction has been charged with the crime.

“At that moment, the person charged with a gun crime gets to leave the jail, and leave with their gun. And that’s crazy,” Richland County Leon Lott said.

“This is not just a plea from law enforcement, but it’s also a plea from the community,” Lott said.

But with the current law, those who are brought in for illegal possession can walk free with a mere “slap on the wrist,” according to Lott

Numerous law enforcement agencies in South Carolina have called for a change to the South Carolina law. But the legislature has refused to take it up.

What the hell does a legal gun owner following the law have to be concerned about with the legislature making the South Carolina law match the federal law with respect to those charged with illegally possessing a gun? Who is the South Carolina legislature protecting here? Certainly not legal gun owners.

 

[DeeDave]

Under current law in South Carolina, local law enforcement can only charge someone with illegal possession of a firearm as a first offense, no matter how many times a perpetrator with a prior conviction has been charged with the crime.

So in the case of the mall shooting- this guy who has been charged with illegal possession of a firearm- - that charge will be a FIRST OFFENSE charge

no matter if he's violated that law dozens of times because of the way the South Carolina legislature has structured the law. So if this is his 14th time being caught and charged (or convicted) with illegal possession - in court it will be considered a "First offense"

That's nuts. It makes no sense. It's not logical. It would be like someone's 4th DUI but it's always their 1st DUI in court no matter how many times they've been convicted of DUI.

They could easily fix this law. South Carolina law enforcement agencies - including SLED - have asked them to fix it repeatedly and they've ignored it. Too busy fighting other meaningless wars.

 

[turncock]

Yes, criminals are focused on people saying "police are all bad" and that's all they needed to commit crimes because we all know South Carolina- who has seen a dramatic rise in crime rates- is so anti police. That's it. You nailed it. 😄

Maybe the right wing legislature could actually work toward bail reform - but, like you, they had rather talk about nonsense than do something about it - which they could easily do - but have chosen not to do anything.

Maybe the right wing legislature could get serious for once.

Under current law in South Carolina, local law enforcement can only charge someone with illegal possession of a firearm as a first offense, no matter how many times a perpetrator with a prior conviction has been charged with the crime.

“At that moment, the person charged with a gun crime gets to leave the jail, and leave with their gun. And that’s crazy,” Richland County Leon Lott said.

“This is not just a plea from law enforcement, but it’s also a plea from the community,” Lott said.

But with the current law, those who are brought in for illegal possession can walk free with a mere “slap on the wrist,” according to Lott

Numerous law enforcement agencies in South Carolina have called for a change to the South Carolina law. But the legislature has refused to take it up.

What the hell does a legal gun owner following the law have to be concerned about with the legislature making the South Carolina law match the federal law with respect to those charged with illegally possessing a gun? Who is the South Carolina legislature protecting here? Certainly not legal gun owners.

Not saying it's a good law by any stretch. However, it's not one directional as you suggest. My friend was the lead public defender in Charleston for many years. One of the reasons it's on the books is to protect otherwise non-violent citizens in low income environments who are simply using it as a means of self-defense. The issue is this case remains what exactly happened and who shot who.

 

[DeeDave]

Not saying it's a good law by any stretch. However, it's not one directional as you suggest. My friend was the lead public defender in Charleston for many years. One of the reasons it's on the books is to protect otherwise non-violent citizens in low income environments who are simply using it as a means of self-defense. The issue is this case remains what exactly happened and who shot who.

Sure it is as I suggest. Well, of course a public defender is going to say that. I wouldn't expect otherwise.

A citizen using a gun for self defense violating the illegal possession law is still guilty of illegal possession if they are not allowed by law to have a gun.

A judge can certainly take into account if the person was using a gun in a truly self defense situation. right? I mean if what you say is legitimate (and I don't believe it is because it makes no sense) - a judge or jury can take that into account. Right? There is nothing that prohibits them from such consideration.

The legislature can write the law to take that concern into account. Right?

But the result of the law is numerous criminals with MULTIPLE charges of illegal gun possession are getting less than a slap on the wrist. Within the current law, those criminals who are illegally possessing numerous weapons are getting treated as if they are a 1st time offender even though they may be a 12 time defender. That is illogical.

It's also why people scream loudly and yell and complain when one of these folks gets released with virtually no bail even though their record shows they've violated SC gun laws many times. It's because the law is a joke and the legislature won't change it.

That's why every law enforcement agency in the state of South Carolina is on record wanting the law changed.

 

[turncock]

Sure it is as I suggest. Well, of course a public defender is going to say that. I wouldn't expect otherwise.

A citizen using a gun for self defense violating the illegal possession law is still guilty of illegal possession if they are not allowed by law to have a gun.

A judge can certainly take into account if the person was using a gun in a truly self defense situation. right? I mean if what you say is legitimate (and I don't believe it is because it makes no sense) - a judge or jury can take that into account. Right? There is nothing that prohibits them from such consideration.

The legislature can write the law to take that concern into account. Right?

But the result of the law is numerous criminals with MULTIPLE charges of illegal gun possession are getting less than a slap on the wrist. Within the current law, those criminals who are illegally possessing numerous weapons are getting treated as if they are a 1st time offender even though they may be a 12 time defender. That is illogical.

It's also why people scream loudly and yell and complain when one of these folks gets released with virtually no bail even though their record shows they've violated SC gun laws many times. It's because the law is a joke and the legislature won't change it.

That's why every law enforcement agency in the state of South Carolina is on record wanting the law changed.

Totally agree. You worked in alot of "right wing" above and I was adding that it's a little more complicated than that. Ultimately, it's a two-way street that leads to a dead end. It does need to be amended.

 

[JohnnySolo]

Totally agree. You worked in alot of "right wing" above and I was adding that it's a little more complicated than that. Ultimately, it's a two-way street that leads to a dead end. It does need to be amended.

I agree. It isn't just one side that is ignorant to this issue. All those involved. The current political system has gotten way out of hand. Its unbelievable the things our current elected officials will push regardless of common sense. Its done to benefit whoever or whatever puts more money in their pocket and keeps them elected. Exactly what constituency is ok with this law?

 

[lexgamecock]

South Carolina judges (and prosecutors) need to be called out for their perpetual accommodation of violent criminals – whether in the bonds they dole out, the sentences they administer or their utter failure to move cases.

The real culprits here are powerful lawyer-legislators in the S.C. General Assembly who handpick judges, set their salaries, control their budgets … and then reap the ill-gotten rewards of this control. South Carolina is one of only two states in America in which lawmakers elect judges.

 

[DeeDave]

Totally agree. You worked in alot of "right wing" above and I was adding that it's a little more complicated than that. Ultimately, it's a two-way street that leads to a dead end. It does need to be amended.

We agree.

 

[DeeDave]

The real culprits here are powerful lawyer-legislators in the S.C. General Assembly who handpick judges, set their salaries, control their budgets … and then reap the ill-gotten rewards of this control. South Carolina is one of only two states in America in which lawmakers elect judges.

A recent case in South Carolina just in the last few weeks illustrates your point

Young man raped a young woman. The judge sentenced him to probation. This was not the young man's first "rodeo."

The defense lawyer was a pretty powerful state legislator.

The prosecutor that agreed to the probation sentence is a prosecutor that has been trying to land a judgeship for years.

Legislators pick and select judges.

In that scenario, why in the world would the prosecutor want to make the defense lawyer upset? (Answer- he wouldn't).

 

[lexgamecock]

A recent case in South Carolina just in the last few weeks illustrates your point

Young man raped a young woman. The judge sentenced him to probation. This was not the young man's first "rodeo."

The defense lawyer was a pretty powerful state legislator.

The prosecutor that agreed to the probation sentence is a prosecutor that has been trying to land a judgeship for years.

Legislators pick and select judges.

In that scenario, why in the world would the prosecutor want to make the defense lawyer upset? (Answer- he wouldn't).

Yep the defendant was a rich kid who's daddy had money and Connections. One girl he Raped committed suicide. Really FUed system.

 

[FORKCOCK]

Just shut it down. Order offline. I’m thankful I don’t have day long shopping trips anymore. Just give my wife the card and say order what you need. Send what does not fit back.

So, you control "the card"? I envy you.

 

[Boom4life]

So, you control "the card"? I envy you.

I got lucky. My wife is CHEAP. The only “ name brand” stuff she gets, I buy for her. I’m the spender in our relationship. With that said, that’s the reason I really don’t “control” the card. I don’t have to. Now she will spend on our kids in a heartbeat. I do have to watch that category but not really.