Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:46 am
ANZAC wrote:
But my point about why we don't have the data on the effectiveness of OSP's work is that IF someone is prosecuted, it could take a long time for a final disposition to happen. I agree it should be followed up on, but getting from an investigation to a conviction is always a wandering path. I've worked on homicide cases where we've had unassailable physical evidence (gun with perp prints and DNA and blowback DNA from victim) and the cases take years.
So it is early days yet, but letting people walk without even investigating what is going on, is NOT ok.
Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:58 am
deadshot2 wrote:ANZAC wrote:
But my point about why we don't have the data on the effectiveness of OSP's work is that IF someone is prosecuted, it could take a long time for a final disposition to happen. I agree it should be followed up on, but getting from an investigation to a conviction is always a wandering path. I've worked on homicide cases where we've had unassailable physical evidence (gun with perp prints and DNA and blowback DNA from victim) and the cases take years.
So it is early days yet, but letting people walk without even investigating what is going on, is NOT ok.
That should NEVER be a consideration. When the law is broken those tasked with investigating and charging should NEVER give any consideration to how long the process will take. Only consideration should be "was the law broken or not". If so, investigate and file charges. The rest is up to the Courts.
EVERY denial should at least get a cursory review to determine if it was a legitimate error or more sinister. The rest should go directly into a deeper investigation. Prosecute the intentional deception and penalize the entities that provided inadequate or incorrect information.
Way too much "so what, what are they going to do to us" attitude among reporting agencies.
Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:59 pm
ANZAC wrote:mcyclonegt wrote:I would love to know how many slip through the cracks? That is the whole point of a known felon filling out the form isn't it?
What is your definition of slipping through the cracks?
Lied on form and got a proceed?
Denied and not investigated?
Lied, denied and not investigated?
Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:17 pm
Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:25 pm
1811GNR wrote:If the authorities follow up on any of it they lose the ability to use the "xxx,xxx denials prevented a bad person from getting a gun therefore the brady law is pure awesomeness" line of BS
Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:29 pm
ANZAC wrote:I agree with you that if someone is convicted the data should promptly be submitted to the NICS by the local agency.
Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:38 pm
deadshot2 wrote:Can you explain why it isn't being done promptly?
Didn't we recently discuss a "backlog" of entries to the NICS recently?
Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:36 pm
Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:44 pm
Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:13 am
Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:35 pm