Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady, still stinging from the City Council's refusal to ban concealed carry, wants to limit who can possess a weapon in the city. Fair enough. It's not especially surprising that a police chief doesn't want citizens -- especially citizens with a rap sheet -- carrying guns. It makes his officers' job more difficult.
But why does Casady keep harping on the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of those convicted of crimes like indecent exposure? I've asked this before, but the question remains unanswered so I'll ask again: are those convicted of indecent exposure more likely to commit gun crimes (or any violent crime) than those convicted of other misdemeanors? Because if not, Casady's proposal amounts to nothing more than feel-good legislation and is therefore a waste of time.
To me, Chief Casady's "Peter" and "Robert" examples aren't notable for their combined 18 indecent exposure arrests, but for their 227 collective arrests overall. Why focus on the arrests for behavior that is offensive, but essentially harmless? Surely among those 227 there are some other anti-social behaviors that are much better justifications for Casady's goal.
Are there any criminal justice pros out there who can shed light on the relative likelihood of a person convicted of indecent exposure later committing a violent crime?
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I also thought it was strange that he finds some sort of special importance in keeping weapons out of the hands of those who can’t seem to keep their own weapon out of their hands. And citing how many times one has been arrested only dilutes his point: if they have been arrested 227 times for various misdeeds, what makes anyone think they’ll obey the no-CCW ordinance that pertains to them?
My only guess is that the chief is trying to construct a preemptive drag net type of effect and keep guns out of the hands of people who might either be: 1) potential stalkers; 2) potential sex offenders; or 3) homeless people. That would be my guess. And I have no idea if there is an established link with any of the above from indecent exposure based on empirical data.
My best guess is that he feels those types of offenses demonstrate bad judgment that directly affects others.
Dave, if only I were still at the DN, you bet you’d see a cartoon along the lines of “he finds some sort of special importance in keeping weapons out of the hands of those who can
You’re always welcome to whip up a special edition cartoon just for your good friends around here, Neal 😉
<i>You
I probably should jump in quickly and make it clear that although it would be cool if Neal did that, I don’t actually expect him to work for free. I wonder if he works for burritos…
I do believe that I would be in violation of my work agreement if I received compensation for sharing a cartoon with another Lincoln media entity.
However, tomorrow is a cartooning day, so I vow to submit an idea long these lines…if it doesn’t get picked, I’ll post the sketch EXCLUSIVELY ON THIS SITE. If it does get picked, then it’ll just be in the paper Thursday.
Deal?
Sounds good to me. And the burrito offer still stands.
<b>However, tomorrow is a cartooning day, so I vow to submit an idea long these lines…if it doesn
If there is an exclusive Lincolnite cartoon by Neal, I wonder what the probability is that it may feature Dave K, Beer Orkid, and others as some of the characters.
Quite a coup Mr. Wilson. I love Neal’s cartoons and having one in Lincolnite would be cool! Of course, having Neal as a reader is cool, too.
Well, that cartoon didn’t get picked for tomorrow, but it’s being held onto for possible future publication so I don’t want to post it here yet…the content warranted some extra contemplation…
That’s too bad. As juvenile as the DN is/was, the restrictions were much looser as to what you, and the others, could do. I don’t get the impression the editorial board at the LJS has much of a sense of humor, unfortunately.
Well here’s a completely different rejected sketch from today’s batch:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/cheeksofgod/sketch0816-5.jpg
I like the Sheridan cartoon. I thought it was fairly tame considering how easily you could have lambasted the perpetrator.
Seems like Commissar Casaday could write somebody up for graffiti.
More Neal!
Well, they decided it was too risque.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/cheeksofgod/sketch0816-1.jpg
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.