also armed revolt? the threat of armed revolt is what has created this mess.

Liberal fucktard judges constitute the majority of our appellate court system, the state courts aren't much better.

What can you do?Well, I'm not entirely sure about what he means with this question. Are you asking if there is anything we can actually do with the prison system . . . ? Or are you asking spacepony what he can actually do now? I seem to think it's the former and if you are asking it, then you are the problem. I hate using that cliche (or any cliche for that matter), but what it comes down to is if you think you have no power, then you don't. This country is supposed to be ours. We are supposed to direct change. But we are constantly told that we don't and that people no longer gather and make change, so we become more complacent, which in turn ends up creating a self fulfilling prophecy. If you believe that things won't change for the better and that you have no power, then that is exactly what is going to happen.And no, I don't believe positive thoughts and beliefs alone will change things, but actions without some forethought don't usually turn out for the best.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I actually wanted to respond to the article about the GPS tracking and inmates. "That capability has some critics questioning whether the technology is too Orwellian."I for one am pretty paranoid about most things, but I don't see how using GPS tracking on inmates is Orwellian. Is having some technology attached to your leg any different than cameras and a whole slew of guards? The proposed idea of the GPS attached to your ankle while not in jail seems a bit more Orwellian, but I think I would take that option over jail/prison time. The whole thing about the speaker telling you that you are in a "bad area" is preposterous, but as a tracking device for people who would normally have been in prison seems like a decent alternative. So you know when they leave the state or that they've been visiting a purported drug safehouse seems more viable than just letting convicted people walk.Who this would apply to and the rule surrounding it seem like a more important question that whether or not Big Brother is an issue. Not all technology equates to Big Brother. Now when we all are tracked, then I will raise hell.

Conservative does not equal hard ass

and by rights could have killed the guy for attacking your mother.

The defendant's motion pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), to "vacate sentence, dismiss indictment, and credit defendant for time served under an erroneous sentence," alleged, in essence, that the eighteen to twenty year term imposed on the previously filed conviction was an illegal sentence. It is from the order denying this motion that the defendant now appeals, arguing that (1) he was denied his right to speedy sentencing guaranteed under the State and Federal Constitutions; (2) procedures in connection with sentencing on the indictment violated his procedural and substantive due process rights; and (3) the motion judge impermissibly considered an unproven accusation at the time of sentencing.(5)

Discussion. The procedure that lies at the root of this appeal -- indefinitely postponing sentencing with respect to a criminal conviction by placing it "on file" after a finding of guilt -- has been recognized, and approved of, as a common-law custom dating back to the earliest days of the Commonwealth. Initially developed as a form of probation, the practice was one of several ameliorative remedies to harsh legal punishments. See Grinnell, Probation as an Orthodox Common Law Practice in Massachusetts Prior to the Statutory System, 2 Mass. L.Q. 591, 592-612 (1917) (reprinted as Grinnell, The Common Law Origin of Probation in Massachusetts and, Before 1917 and the Federal Probation Act, in the First Federal Circuit, 45 Mass. L.Q. 70 [1960]).(6) The practice was referred to well over a century ago in Commonwealth v. Dowdican's Bail, 115 Mass. 133, 136 (1874):

He replied, I said thank you, hung up and then beat the living tar out of the punk.

So the next time you see someone being hurt do not try to save them...

He got eighty-nine days in jail and a simple assault.

You could end up unemployable for the rest of your life just because you decided to give them a lesson they would not forget.

I meant what Jobs spacePoney can still do aftear he lost several of his licenses.

I meant what Jobs spacePoney can still do aftear he lost several of his licenses.Haha. Nice. That's what happens when I let someone else's post influence me. I completely thought this is what you meant when I first read it. Sorry, I should just go with my gut reaction.

He replied, I said thank you, hung up and then beat the living tar out of the punk. You deserved the jail time.There's a fine line between giving aid and handing out revenge, and from the description you gave, you crossed it. Grabbing him and holding him was fine, but there is zero reason for you to beat him up. It's up to the judge to hand out punishments - it's not up to you, nor should it be.
So the next time you see someone being hurt do not try to save them... It wasn't saving her that landed you in jail. It was going beyond saving her and performing extra, totally unnecessary violence.
He got eighty-nine days in jail and a simple assault.He just stole a cell phone. You beat him up. Yeah, you should've handled the situation differently. It's not your right to teach people lessons. You're not supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner. That's the job of the legal system.
You could end up unemployable for the rest of your life just because you decided to give them a lesson they would not forget.The lesson is to be given by the legal system, not by you. Sorry, but when people give out their own "justice," we end up with a lot of people going overboard and handing out punishments far beyond what the other person really deserves. Anger and revenge often make crimes a lot worse than they really are, and blow up situations beyond control. A third party to make judgments and hand out sentences is the accepted way of doing things, because a third party is a lot more level headed and reasonable than somebody burning with anger and a desire for revenge. Sorry, but I really don't have much sympathy for somebody who beats up another person, even if the other person wronged them. Two wrongs do not equal a right, and revenge is not a healthy way of handling a crime.