kind compassionate caring tolerant liberals have zero “compassion”for real Americans…. ignorance is bliss for them, until something happens to them.. “journalism” is the mouthpiece for the lies. I love this sheriff. We the People need more of this.
"You don't think that's a dangerous message you're putting out?"
What's more dangerous overall: telling criminals that they could get shot attempting a carjacking, or telling criminals they are safe attempting a carjacking?
The bigger point of ignorance for this journalist - and I wish the good Sheriff had expounded on this and beat it into the journalists' collective heads - is that a carjacking is an attempt to steal a car WITH A PERSON IN IT.
Stealing a vacant car parked at the curb is a "property crime". The SECOND there's an innocent human sitting inside the car, it's no longer a "property crime"; it's now a "crime against a person", and since there's violence or a threat of violence, that makes it a "crime of violence against a person", a.k.a. a "forcible felony".
Put another way, it's the same difference between burglary (property crime) and home invasion (violent crime against person[s]): in the former, the home is vacant, but in the latter, the home is occupied and violence is involved.
The ignorant journalist is trying to equate "carjacking" with "auto theft", but they're NOT AT ALL the same thing. Good on the Sheriff for calling that crap out, but he could have explained the real, legal difference, in a way that he'd never get asked that idiotic question again.
kind compassionate caring tolerant liberals have zero “compassion”for real Americans…. ignorance is bliss for them, until something happens to them.. “journalism” is the mouthpiece for the lies. I love this sheriff. We the People need more of this.
Sheriff Grady was 100% correct.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!
or can't do the afterlife
The penultimate "time" to "do".
"You don't think that's a dangerous message you're putting out?"
What's more dangerous overall: telling criminals that they could get shot attempting a carjacking, or telling criminals they are safe attempting a carjacking?
The bigger point of ignorance for this journalist - and I wish the good Sheriff had expounded on this and beat it into the journalists' collective heads - is that a carjacking is an attempt to steal a car WITH A PERSON IN IT.
Stealing a vacant car parked at the curb is a "property crime". The SECOND there's an innocent human sitting inside the car, it's no longer a "property crime"; it's now a "crime against a person", and since there's violence or a threat of violence, that makes it a "crime of violence against a person", a.k.a. a "forcible felony".
Put another way, it's the same difference between burglary (property crime) and home invasion (violent crime against person[s]): in the former, the home is vacant, but in the latter, the home is occupied and violence is involved.
The ignorant journalist is trying to equate "carjacking" with "auto theft", but they're NOT AT ALL the same thing. Good on the Sheriff for calling that crap out, but he could have explained the real, legal difference, in a way that he'd never get asked that idiotic question again.