Most Shooters in Obama’s Home Town of Chicago Don’t Face Charges. Why is that?

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by DaTroof

 

That's great if Rahm can get more cops. Now you just have to get the Aldermen and the ward bosses to let the cops in to the districts that need a thorough cleaning...

Indeed. The problem areas are the same neighborhoods that were problem areas 10 years ago. The thing is, by taking police out of "decent" neighborhoods, the crime has spilled over to places it hadn't been so prevalent. Once kids in these neighborhoods realize the police aren't the enemy, maybe the whole anti-snitch culture can fall to the wayside.

reply to post by abeverage

Who has suggested an amendment to the constitution specifically the 2nd? Please link me to this information.

Well you can start here with Feinsteins bill.
Rahm Emanuel is also calling for a nationwide ban.

"It's time that we as a city have an assault weapons ban. It's time that we as a state have an assault weapons ban. It's time that we as a country have an assault weapons ban," Emanuel said.

The problem is that Emanuel's ban, in place from 1994 to 2004, had no measurable effect on crime.

Link

That sounds like a 2nd amendment attack to me.

Obama has no power to take away guns anyone with an 8th grade education in U.S. government knows that. Hate to point out the obvious but the president cannot write or pass laws nor can he amend or change the constitution. And isn't the point of your topic about shooters getting out of being charged?

Well he was never granted power to detain without trial and even kill American citizens either but somehow he has that power now.

Blame on a President is a distraction anyone who does has a narrow focused agenda. And as far as charges he has not been a rep of that state in more than 4 years surely it is because he is president...It would be the Judges not a representative that decides who is charged and who is not. So unless you are blaming him for a pardon I don't see your point!

I didn't blame Obama for violence in Chicago. The people who commit violence are to blame. I criticized him for pursuing a failed policy that hasn't worked anywhere its been tried, including his home state.

This is an anti-Obama thread yet again which is a pointless distraction, as always people need a scapegoat instead of finding the real threats.

Scapegoat?? Oh, you mean like Obama, Feinstein, Rahm et al scapegoating guns instead of finding the real cause of the violence?

reply to post by seabag


Umm I dunno maybe because it's CHICAGO a notoriously bad crime city, duh. And that is a percentage difference of 2.5% It's not even worth reporting thats more than likely in their +/- range from the skewing of study results. and maybe there was more shootings and the same number of cops, could be any number of things. Quit wasting people's time (including my own) with nothing.

reply to post by DaTroof

Oh cool, I might know some of your family!

Maybe so. I've got a big family. I was in Oaklawn visiting a few of them last September.

The thing is, Rahm is working to get more police on the streets. Source

That's good! I would much rather see more cops on the streets than less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. If police are as scarce as you claim then the last thing I'd want as a citizen is to be without a gun to defend myself.

I agree that Chicago is crooked, hell it's always been. That's why it's not a good example when it comes to proving whether or not certain anti-crime tactics are efficient. For myself and your family and all the other residents of Chicagoland, I hope that eventually these crime rates will drop.

I agree. When the people keep electing crooks I find it hard to believe anything will get better though. I hope it does!!

I don't talk politics or guns with my family in Chicago. Most of them are liberal and we don't see eye to eye, so I steer clear of certain topics. My dad always reminds me to 'never talk politics with family' when we go there. My aunts, uncles and cousins know where I stand (I'm a conservative veteran from Texas) and they know not to bring it up, too.

reply to post by Headband7

Umm I dunno maybe because it's CHICAGO a notoriously bad crime city, duh. And that is a percentage difference of 2.5% It's not even worth reporting thats more than likely in their +/- range from the skewing of study results. and maybe there was more shootings and the same number of cops, could be any number of things.

In Chicago: Stricter gun laws = Higher crime rate

In Chicago: Higher crime rate = less prosecution

Tell me why the rest of the country should adopt policies that don't work.

Quit wasting people's time (including my own) with nothing.

Uhm...you joined my thread, I didn't join yours!

reply to post by seabag



On many issues, I may come across as liberal, but believe me when I say I roll my eyes at what we call "WGN Liberals" around here. I like WGN, it's been a staple of my entire life and I was glad to be able to stay "in touch" with Chicago when I lived down South. That being said, WGN news is extremely liberal in the way they cover news stories and commend those on the left-wing side of politics.

I consider myself a centrist, but that's locally. Many on the national stage, especially those in more conservative-minded regions probably think I'm employed by the Democratic Party.


I don't blame anyone from outside the area being completely flabbergasted by our local politics.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Most Shooters in Obama’s Home Town of Chicago Don’t Face Charges. Why is that?,

Because OBAMA HIMSELF didn't want them to. He said it was RAAAAAAAAAAACIST.

ATS Thread - 1999 Sen. Obama Wouldn't Support Tougher Prosecution for School Shooters

Tied to this - Sen. Obama Backs Race Based School Discipline Policies
- Race Based ... as in, let the 'minorities' off but nail the white kids for the same crime.

and check this out ...
more here

He (obama) also voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection.

That was great!!!!! I've never read about those. Let's see how he plays the "do as I say not as I...." wait, uuuhhhhh, "do as I do and not as I..." no, no it's "don't do as I say or do.... oh hell, Joe, hey Joe, you wanna take this one, I gotta golf ball with my name on it"

reply to post by Gridrebel

That was great!!!!! I've never read about those. Let's see how he plays the "do as I say not as I...." wait, uuuhhhhh, "do as I do and not as I..." no, no it's "don't do as I say or do.... oh hell, Joe, hey Joe, you wanna take this one, I gotta golf ball with my name on it"

I know, right? According to Obama, guns make us less safe.

I sure wish he’d explain this:

Nobody sees anything

Nobody knows anything

Snitching is far worse then having the cops arrest the gunman.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Nobody sees anything

Nobody knows anything

Snitching is far worse then having the cops arrest the gunman.

Apparently that's the case according to LE.

That sure sounds like a people problem rather than a gun problem!

Maybe the government's efforts should be focused on reducing the 70,000+ estimated gang members in Chi-town rather than worrying about guns owned by law abiding citizen's!

reply to post by seabag


Places you have the most extreme gun laws like Illinois, California and Colorado...might be a few others. You have higher crime rates. No one seems to be reporting that on the news. Take Chicago for example...are gun laws and gun bans going to matter to criminals? They break the law already, they don't care about the law.

reply to post by Evanzsayz

Take Chicago for example...are gun laws and gun bans going to matter to criminals?

Of course not!

They break the law already, they don't care about the law.

Of course they do. There is a hidden agenda I alluded to in the OP when I said if you can’t sniff out the agenda in this case then you probably don’t belong on ATS. It's obvious this gun grab has never been about preventing violent crime. Biden publicly admits these measures won't prevent more mass shootings. This gun grab is about UN Agenda 21 and the complete disarmament of the American people. This is one more step closer to complete control over the population.

Chicago is a gun free zone! so law abiding citizens cant protect themselves, so why are they going to testify against armed criminals? people have been killed for calling police when gangs are dealing drugs on a street corner!

Chicago has a ban on handguns and you need a permit before you can bring a gun into the city and the firearm must be approved by chicago. they have outlawed just about every type of rifle or other weapons and they have made the permit process very hard and restrictive.

in Illinois, you need a state issued FIREARMS ID card to even touch a gun or to even posses a bullet or gun magazine! you cant even get a tazer w/out this ID, but of course they are illegal in chicago. you cant even own laser sites for a gun! if you actually see the list of banned weapons in chicago and Illinois, you would be amazed!

so violent crime has increased due to taking away the peoples right to own guns for self defense, they live in fear. so how do you stop crime and get convictions when the criminals arent afraid, not even of the police!?

reply to post by Dekard1138

so violent crime has increased due to taking away the peoples right to own guns for self defense, they live in fear.

The people pushing these crappy laws (the federal government) know the score. It’s the dupes among us supporting these dumb laws who really piss me off.

What you said is exactly right. Some dupes simply can’t grasp the concept that crooks will get guns NO MATTER WHAT! When you stiffen gun laws you hurt the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves; you take away any deterrent to crime. When the crooks know that they only have a 10% (or less) chance of breaking into a home and looking down the business end of a gun barrel they are emboldened! Across the country, violent crime rates are highest in places with the strictest gun laws!!!!!

This is because strict gun laws, or even the banning of guns, does not affect the violent crime rate to any significant degree. It is logical, if one is willing to think about it. Criminals are people who do not respect the rule of law, and who will break laws at their leisure. This means that the likelihood of them complying with any gun laws is slim, and the majority likely will not. The only people who will comply are the people who respect the rule of law, and they don't go around shooting people. Therefore gun laws are simply stupid. Even if guns were banned in the US, some criminal would move in to a very lucrative new market importing guns, and criminals will still have the same amount of firepower.

Originally posted by seabag
Why would a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country have one of the absolute highest violent crime rates and one of the most abysmal gun crime prosecution rates?

It couldn't have anything to do with the criminals knowing that any law-abiding citizens won't be shooting back and anyone shooting back at them is also breaking the law and won't be reporting them to the Police, could it?

At least that's how it used to be.

The gun ban in Chicago has only been lifted for 1 maybe 2 years now. And you still have to jump through hoops to get a permit from what I hear.

Yet, cops like this:

www.youtube.com...

Stop people just because they "want to" and then THREATEN TO KILL THEM.


Yet the real criminals do whatever they want.