At least 6 dead in Mass Shooting du Jour

[Derec]

I wonder why there isn't a thread on this already. Elixir, I know how much you love threads about mass shootings. Asleep at the switch? Or is it something else?

Sacramento shooting: At least six dead in centre of California state capital
What we know about the 6 people killed in downtown Sacramento mass shooting

Note also that one of the shooters (there are thought to have been five) was released from prison early despite a long history of violent crimes.

Suspect released weeks before Sacramento mass shooting

Smiley Martin most recently was sentenced in 2018 to 10 years in state prison for assaulting his girlfriend, according to court records and the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office.
In April of 2021, Deputy District Attorney Danielle Abildgaard argued against his early release from prison. In a letter to the parole board she wrote, “Inmate Martin has, for his entire adult life, displayed a pattern of criminal behavior.”
The deputy district attorney continued to detail his various crimes since coming of age. In January 2013, Smiley Martin was charged with gun possession as a prohibited person stemming from a juvenile case, as well as obstruction of justice. The then 18-year-old was sentenced to jail time and probation.
[...]
His most recent incarceration stemmed from a May 2017 incident. According to Deputy District Attorney Abildgaard’s letter, “Inmate Martin forcibly entered his girlfriend’s residence. He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries. He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt.”
Smiley Martin pleaded guilty to two felony assault charges in that case, resulting in the 2018 10-year prison sentence. He served about half of his sentence and was released on probation in February. He might have been released sooner, but a Parole Board rejected his bid for early release.

Served ~4 years of his ten year sentence, despite a mile long rap sheet. That's California for you. Strictest gun laws in the county, but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

Criminal justice reform should not be about releasing dangerous violent career criminals early. It should be about trimming the criminal code to get rid of crimes that should not be crimes (either totally legal - e.g. adult sex work or just infractions - e.g. most moving violations). That way police and the courts can focus on the actual bad guys.

 

[Elixir]

It should be about trimming the criminal code to get rid of crimes that should not be crimes (either totally legal - e.g. adult sex work

 

[laughing dog]

Criminal justice reform should not be about releasing dangerous violent career criminals early. It should be about trimming the criminal code to get rid of crimes that should not be crimes (either totally legal - e.g. adult sex work or just infractions - e.g. most moving violations). That way police and the courts can focus on the actual bad guys.

Why would anyone think criminal justice reform is an either or course? Trimming the incarcerated population is a worthy goal of reform just as the avoidance of incarceration of those who are not a danger to society or who have not committed a serious crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Served ~4 years of his ten year sentence, despite a mile long rap sheet. That's California for you. Strictest gun laws in the county, but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

Criminal justice reform should not be about releasing dangerous violent career criminals early. It should be about trimming the criminal code to get rid of crimes that should not be crimes (either totally legal - e.g. adult sex work or just infractions - e.g. most moving violations). That way police and the courts can focus on the actual bad guys.

This isn't about problems with the code (and the changes you're talking about would have pretty much zero effect), but rather that politicians are more interested in putting people in jail than actually providing jail space. The judges have gotten involved and limited overcrowding. Thus the jails have to release people early because they don't have the capacity. This is not a failure of the criminal code or the justice system, it is a failure of the politicians. Throwing criminals in jail gets votes. Them being released doesn't get blamed on the politicians who didn't fund the jails.

 

[Politesse]

I wonder why there isn't a thread on this already. Elixir, I know how much you love threads about mass shootings. Asleep at the switch? Or is it something else?

Sacramento shooting: At least six dead in centre of California state capital
What we know about the 6 people killed in downtown Sacramento mass shooting

Note also that one of the shooters (there are thought to have been five) was released from prison early despite a long history of violent crimes.

Suspect released weeks before Sacramento mass shooting

Smiley Martin most recently was sentenced in 2018 to 10 years in state prison for assaulting his girlfriend, according to court records and the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office.
In April of 2021, Deputy District Attorney Danielle Abildgaard argued against his early release from prison. In a letter to the parole board she wrote, “Inmate Martin has, for his entire adult life, displayed a pattern of criminal behavior.”
The deputy district attorney continued to detail his various crimes since coming of age. In January 2013, Smiley Martin was charged with gun possession as a prohibited person stemming from a juvenile case, as well as obstruction of justice. The then 18-year-old was sentenced to jail time and probation.
[...]
His most recent incarceration stemmed from a May 2017 incident. According to Deputy District Attorney Abildgaard’s letter, “Inmate Martin forcibly entered his girlfriend’s residence. He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries. He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt.”
Smiley Martin pleaded guilty to two felony assault charges in that case, resulting in the 2018 10-year prison sentence. He served about half of his sentence and was released on probation in February. He might have been released sooner, but a Parole Board rejected his bid for early release.

Served ~4 years of his ten year sentence, despite a mile long rap sheet. That's California for you. Strictest gun laws in the county, but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

Criminal justice reform should not be about releasing dangerous violent career criminals early. It should be about trimming the criminal code to get rid of crimes that should not be crimes (either totally legal - e.g. adult sex work or just infractions - e.g. most moving violations). That way police and the courts can focus on the actual bad guys.

Speaking for myself, my position on gun control has not changed as a result of this incident.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

So you think ten years would have reformed this guy?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

So you think ten years would have reformed this guy?

I don't know. But what counter argument are you making? That it was no use imprisoning him in the first place, since he was just going to get out and shoot people afterwards?

Imagine if he gets another light sentence for this. Do you think that will make his future offending more, or less likely?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?

But it wasn't a ten year sentence, was it? He was let out after four. It was effectively a four year sentence. And, of course, if you've been dealt with leniency repeatedly in the past, and you know the real sentence is effectively less than the nominal sentence, the deterrent effect of prison is not as much as it could be.

You and ZiprHead appear to be saying this particular criminal was beyond reform. Should he have been incarcerated for life instead?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?

But it wasn't a ten year sentence, was it?...

Are you seriously claiming that he knew he would serve the 10 years when he committed his original crime?

He was let out after four. It was effectively a four year sentence. And, of course, if you've been dealt with leniency repeatedly in the past, and you know the real sentence is effectively less than the nominal sentence, the deterrent effect of prison is not as much as it could be.

You and ZiprHead appear to be saying this particular criminal was beyond reform. Should he have been incarcerated for life instead?

I think you should stop erecting straw men to deflect from your poor arguments.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?

But it wasn't a ten year sentence, was it?...

Are you seriously claiming that he knew he would serve the 10 years when he committed his original crime?

I'm claiming the exact opposite. Whatever sentence he thought he would get, he'd have known it was nominal and not actual.

He was let out after four. It was effectively a four year sentence. And, of course, if you've been dealt with leniency repeatedly in the past, and you know the real sentence is effectively less than the nominal sentence, the deterrent effect of prison is not as much as it could be.

You and ZiprHead appear to be saying this particular criminal was beyond reform. Should he have been incarcerated for life instead?

I think you stop erecting straw men to deflect from your poor arguments.

What poor arguments? That lenient sentences that are cut short are likely to have a lesser deterrent effect than harsher sentences fully served?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?

But it wasn't a ten year sentence, was it?...

Are you seriously claiming that he knew he would serve the 10 years when he committed his original crime?

I'm claiming the exact opposite. Whatever sentence he thought he would get, he'd have known it was nominal and not actual.

You are claiming without a shred of supporting evidence that this person knew before he committed the crime for which he was convicted that he would not serve the entire sentence even though he would not known that sentence prior to his initial criminal act?

And that ignores the reality that there is very little evidence to suggest that harsher sentences deter crime.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?

But it wasn't a ten year sentence, was it?...

Are you seriously claiming that he knew he would serve the 10 years when he committed his original crime?

I'm claiming the exact opposite. Whatever sentence he thought he would get, he'd have known it was nominal and not actual.

You are claiming without a shred of supporting evidence that this person knew before he committed the crime for which he was convicted that he would not serve the entire sentence even though he would not known that sentence prior to his initial criminal act?

It doesn't entail knowing the sentence. Knowing that the State you committed the crime in regularly releases people much earlier than the nominal sentence time is enough.

And that ignores the reality that there is very little evidence to suggest that harsher sentences deter crime.

What should California have done in this case? If harsher sentences don't deter crime, would it be justified by literally preventing the criminal from committing crime in the general community (by keeping them incarcerated)?

 

[Swammerdami]

If the facts are as Derec implies, I agree! Even if we were confident he was likely to assault again whether locked up for 10 years or 5 years, elementary arithmetic shows that a longer term reduces the assault rate.

But it's better to focus on the general problem and general solutions rather than jerk-reflex to one anecdote. There are many flaws in U.S. society which need to be fixed. For starters, in 2010, the U.S. incarceration rate was 0.45% for non-Hispanic whites, 0.83% for Hispanics, and a whopping 2.31% for blacks. Those are across ALL ages and both genders: So when restricting to young males, or especially young black males, the incarceration rates are mind-boggingly large. Only Russia comes close to the U.S. rate of incarceration. The average incarceration rate in Europe is about one tenth of the U.S. rate.

It's hard to get good numbers: federal prisons, state prisons, state jails, and juvenile detentions report separately. One government table has no classification for drug offenses and other "victimless" crimes, despite that 45% of federal prisoners are in for drugs. And of course with different average sentences, the incarceration rate will not match the imprisonment rate. But even though the War on Drugs is often blamed for high incarceration, violent crime in America is much MUCH higher than it "should" be.

And many people are incarcerated wrongly. Suspects are often coerced into guilty pleas. Incarceration itself may turn a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. I can't begin to list the flaws in the U.S. justice system.

Reducing gun violence would be a good first step.

Spoiler: Swammi's secret plan to reduce gun violence

Gun control.

Income inequality fosters crime; this is also a big problem in the U.S. So are racial and ethnic bigotries. And now we have important politicians actively fomenting violence.

Frankly much of the U.S. system seems rotten to the core. :-( And while Derec may not be wrong about this particular incident, the smug "law and order" thinking of many right-wing Americans is a part of the problem, rather than solution. (I didn't click, but I bet the subject of OP is black — what do I win?)

 

[ZiprHead]

You and ZiprHead appear to be saying this particular criminal was beyond reform. Should he have been incarcerated for life instead?

US prisons are very poor at reform.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?

Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:

but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.

If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.

A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?

But it wasn't a ten year sentence, was it?...

Are you seriously claiming that he knew he would serve the 10 years when he committed his original crime?

I'm claiming the exact opposite. Whatever sentence he thought he would get, he'd have known it was nominal and not actual.

You are claiming without a shred of supporting evidence that this person knew before he committed the crime for which he was convicted that he would not serve the entire sentence even though he would not known that sentence prior to his initial criminal act?

It doesn't entail knowing the sentence. Knowing that the State you committed the crime in regularly releases people much earlier than the nominal sentence time is enough.

Your position is incoherent. If increasing the length of the sentence creates more of a deterrent, then knowing the length of the potential sentence is necessary, even if you think the sentence is going to be effectively reduced.

In essence, you are tacitly agreeing that the length of a sentence is not a deterrent.

The OP's argument is that this criminal would not have been free to commit this alleged crime if he had still been serving his sentence. That is absolutely true. However, his release is due to the lack of prison space. Clearly, the people of California through their democratic process do not wish to allocate their scarce resources into expanding prison capacity.

 

[Gospel]

It's called black-on-black crime, not a mass shooting. I always thought a mass shooting was the intent to indiscriminately kill a bunch of random people. Not a shooting like this one where a bunch of hoodlums trying to kill each other kill innocent bystanders in the process. It doesn't make it any less of a Gun Control, law enforcement, Prison system, and most importantly a community issue. It's a wonder where young black men get so much hatred for each other from? Handed down from the parents? Where did the parents get it from? It's like this is a major issue in the black community while not very much so with others. I wonder why?

 

[laughing dog]

It's called black-on-black crime, not a mass shooting. I always thought a mass shooting was the intent to indiscriminately kill a bunch of random people. Not a shooting like this one where a bunch of hoodlums trying to kill each other kill innocent bystanders in the process. It doesn't make it any less of a Gun Control, law enforcement, Prison system, and most importantly a community issue. It's a wonder where young black men get so much hatred for each other from? Handed down from the parents? Where did the parents get it from? It's like this is a major issue in the black community while not very much so with others. I wonder why?

Now I get the motivation for the OP.

There is no uniform definition for  Mass_shooting. This incident fall under one conventional use.