This doesn't matter since Jordan says everyone labeled as violent is violent.
> On 4 May 2006 at 10:26, Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> And there's the whacky stuff they can do with criminal
> history. Here's an example:
>
> >The district court increased Lindquist's base offense level because
> >he had prior violent-crime convictions. Those Iowa state court
> >convictions resulted from joyriding on an all-terrain vehicle before
> >abandoning it in a field (operating a motor vehicle without the
> >owner's consent), and waiting in a car while Lindquist's friend
> >opened an unlocked pickup truck door and stole its stereo
> >(third-degree burglary). It conflicts with the very concept of a
> >crime of violence to include these offenses in that category....
> >
> >The purpose of crimes-of-violence enhancements is to treat violent
> >criminal history more seriously than non-violent criminal history.
> >It is not hard to conceive scenarios in which non-violent felony
> >crimes could become violent, but, in my view, we ought not
> >trivialize this guideline section's purpose by expanding the
> >category too broadly. Here, the result is that James Lindquist's
> >sentence is increased substantially because of the "violent felony"
> >of joyriding on a recreational vehicle.
This doesn't matter since Jordan says everyone labeled as violent is violent.
Can't you see the violence in stealing a stereo from an unlocked pickup? I have gooseflesh just thinking about it.
This is silly thread, everyone knows all violent offenders are actually guilty of committing a violent act and no amount of evidence is going to change that. Just because three or five stories can be conjured up in a few moments with no effort that counter this claim is no reason to give it up.
This is a bizarre culture of fear some of you seem to want to live in.
John Thornton