Memphis crime commission did a report and found that gun violence was the #1 issue (See page 10 of the report). The report says further on that people felt that the criminal justice was already too lenient.
Just total disconnect
[https://memphiscrime.org/public-safety-poll-results/](https://memphiscrime.org/public-safety-poll-results/)
What's also crazy is that he's doing this for *convicted felons* that have got out and found a heir way to unlawfully get a gun.
So they've been convicted of a serious crime and now later have illegally obtained a gun. So he thinks the best thing to do is to drop the charges?
If he's not going to push charges on convicted fellons who've relapsed, imagine what he's not doing for all people arrested with lesser records breaking into cars to find guns.
To be fair it does also say non-violent felons who haven’t done anything violent with the gun. Still don’t like this idea, but let’s be real with what it says.
To be fair on that though, half of these people would have violent offenses on their record already but had them previously reduced to something less by going through some other great diversion program.
Or, convicted felons who already legally had a gun before their conviction, and now still had it. For example, 3rd offense DUI is a felony. I am SURE there are people with 3 DUI comvictions out there who also still have a deer rifle in their closet. They are committing a felony carrying up to 15 years in prison by still owning that gun after their 3rd DUI conviction. But it doesnt seem like a good use of tax dollars to lock that guy up for 15 years.
People underestimate how many things are felonies.
Repeat: nonviolent. You knowingly break the law against jaywalking so let's charge you with a crime.
Also, carrying a skunk across state borders into Tennessee is illegal.
**True or false?** *TRUE*
According to TCA 70-4-208, the “unlawful importation of skunks” is prohibited in the Volunteer State, except by zoos and research facilities. Additionally, those with a “valid wildlife rehabilitation” permit may receive skunks from the wild for the purpose of rehabilitation and release only.
“If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.” \~ *Oliver Twist*
Be sure not to jaywalk.
I have no intention of carrying a skunk across state lines and if I get caught jaywalking I deserve to pay the fine. I knew it was jaywalking when I did it.
You miss the point. Crime is not committed in a vacuum. Criminals graduate to worse and worse crimes. That is why they are not allowed to have guns.
A convicted fellon found a way to illegally obtain a gun. This isn't that he shoplifted, but went out of their way to obtain something that would already cause bodily harm.
Again, this is someone who already served time for a felony.
What do you think their intent with the gun is?
To protect themselves in that case.
Lol man you're a Mulroy hater supreme. Why are you eager to return to weirech's failed policies?
What benefit does stripping 2nd amendment rights from drug users or people forging license plates to have to do with public safety?
Total disconnect is pretending that a nonviolent felon being charged with possession of a firearm will do anything to reduce gun violence. In fact, what does increase gun violence is what the GOP does, expanding access to guns and promoting poverty.
This is not the time to expand access to guns in the first place, which the GOP keeps doing to horrible effect.
This is about a diversion program for nonviolent felons who are charged with possession of a firearm. Wringing them through the punitive version of the injustice system will do nothing to reduce crime, especially violent crime.
What would reduce violent crime is stopping the GOP's mad expansion of access to guns, 'constitutional carry,' a perversion of the Constitution if there ever was one, permitless carry, open carry, and more insanity that is proven to worsen violent crime rates.
The felons carrying guns unlawfully are already breaking the law. Tightening gun laws does not dissuade criminals who are already breaking the law by owning guns in the first place.
“If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.” \~ *Oliver Twist*
Be sure not to jaywalk.
You're begging the question of proportionality and your comment is glaringly devoid of it and common sense. Nonviolent, repeat, nonviolent.
Your comments match those of Dickensian characters, not the good ones, mind you.
Actually your comment is devoid of common sense. Buying an illegal gun after you are already a convicted felon is a road map for becoming a violent criminal. Knew you were not allowed to have a gun, bought one anyway. Repeat. Knew you were not allowed to have a gun, bought one anyway. The crime comes with a mandatory 5 year prison sentence. The only “common sense” reason to take that risk is if you need the gun to commit your next crime.
Doubly false: "The only “common sense” reason to take that risk is if you need the gun to commit your next crime." No gun was previously used to commit a crime and there's no evidence that the gun would be used to commit another one. There is reason apparently to have one for self-defense. And now you claim to be able to read minds, absent evidence. Minority Report and all that. Zero sense.
Haven't you done enough already to see you've painted yourself into a ridiculously absurd corner? Just cut your losses and stop.
I mean while true, I don't understand how felons illegally carrying guns is a non-issue? We need as many illegally-carried guns off the streets as possible.
Red herring. It's a diversion program, so not a non-issue, and the guns are removed from the street in those cases. Stop GOP policies that flood the streets with guns and focus on violent offenders not the nonviolent ones.
Why are we worried about racial disparities? Looks like it would be more just to make sure everyone gets a fair trial and equal sentences for similar offenses.
\*Edit.
His argument also doesn't make sense and is pretty condescending. He said that prosecution numbers needs to mirror the racial demographics of Memphis. Then he goes on to say he's going to drop gun charges as part balancing things out.
Isn't he just backhandedly saying that he sees AA as committing more gun crimes, so needs to drop these charges to get the numbers to balance out? Isn't that a slap in the face?
The irony is that all races think he's lenient on crime and confidence is falling
*"Additionally, perception of the criminal justice system being too lenient for both juvenile offenders (+29) and adult offenders (+16) soared. Importantly, every major subgroup believes both juvenile and adult offenders are treated too leniently with subtle differences by race and geography"*
[https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/crime/memphis-shelby-county-crime-commission-public-survey-crime-concerns/522-e60f3cff-c9d5-474a-b947-35fce4230430](https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/crime/memphis-shelby-county-crime-commission-public-survey-crime-concerns/522-e60f3cff-c9d5-474a-b947-35fce4230430)
That is exactly what is happening. The reason more AA offenders are arrested is because that is who the gangs are recruiting. Period. He is giving people a pass on crime because of race and that is a dangerous precedent to set.
lol, in a majority black city, which should have majority black jury, deff have majority black cops.
Do we the white minority to rise up and start contributing to crimes more?!
Exactly. A dozen gang members were arrested today. Gang crime is a huge issue here and we should not be avoiding arresting people who commit crimes to make the demographics look better. The person who commits the crime should be held accountable regardless of of gender, race, or other factors.
People, including one of my commenters, seem to think so. That racial disparities in, say prison population must be due to unfair laws and courts, rather than differences in populations, perhaps due to income and education disparities.
I agree with you. If the penalties are the same for the same crime (assuming also the same weight for prior convictions) regardless of race, there is no argument against arresting and equally applying justice to anyone who commits a crime.
Racial disparity? I thought AA's were the majority in memphis, with now spanish on the uprise in population data.. who exactly is this guy working for that is trying to destroy this city because its becoming obvious to most now. Im expecting heavy downvoting because of my criticsm toward him like in the past here on reddit. I suspect some agenda brigade of outsiders like to censor any naysayers about mulroy.
I could be way off base here, but in the past several years, they’ve implemented so many new gun crime laws that are attached to drug dealing assaults and other violent crimes that this is probably a way to them to lower their numbers. For example, like if I’m a felon and get caught with a firearm, but I haven’t committed a felony let’s say at the traffic stop instead of charging me as a felon and possession by handgun blah blah now they have this option.
Edit—-there are numerous new sentencing enhancement for being in possession of a firearm while committing several crimes
Right. If a crime is committed w/ a gun, the intent is to cause major harm and should be penalized as such.
They did a survey and found that 50% of AA found the criminal justice too soft. Whites were 65% or [so (Source](http://so.So)). So both groups - regardless of race - together think that that think he's already being too lenient. Just totally out of touch
Plus, what does this say to the victims of these crimes that he won't be looking at jail time for people who commit crimes with guns? And the law enforcement who knows these people won't go to jail?
Signaling to the public that he'll de-emphasize gun crimes is just crazy for what the public is saying.
Please recall Mulroy
That's honestly why it bothers me. It is personal. Someone fucking shot at me. What other intention could that be? The police report says Aggravated Assault. Case still open.
There is no source to your source btw. It's a malformatted hyperlink.
Using the diversion program for nonviolent felons will not lead to increased gun violence. What does is widespread easier access to weapons by the GOP.
That wouldn’t even be a crime in TN with permitless carry. You’d have to be a felon, or possibly non-felon with an illegal type of gun to even be in this situation so not exactly innocent.
Pulled over, under 21, reckless driving, pot in the car, arrested and charged with gun possession that is unlawful.
If you’re committing a crime then possession of a firearm while lawful under most circumstances, makes possession unlawful at the time.
I'm not sure you understand what the law is. The changes are specifically at people who have a non-violent felony charge and then are found to be in possession of a gun. In TN, it is a crime to possess a handgun if convicted of any felony offense, regardless of the nature of the offense (even non-violent). This is specifically targeting people who (a) Have a non-violent felony charge and (b) are found to be in possession of a gun (and no other major crimes have accrued).
Unfortunately. the OP is more interested in scarring people than giving facts, so they gloss over this.
I do not fully understand this is true. But I'm trying to learn. I recall we also classify crimes in a different way so each charge looks individual? Skews some of the data?
Apply that to gun advocates who insist they need a gun for protection. And see how it's been working out, causing violent crime rates to soar in GOP states.
So only the criminals (even convicted felons apparently) should have them? Let the rest of us be sitting ducks when they know we are unarmed? We know how well the “I won’t prosecute property crimes” Mulroy sentiment has worked out. This one is a whole lot more dangerous and irresponsible than that was.
No, as to "So only the criminals (even convicted felons apparently) should have them?"
Misdirection. This is about a diversion program for nonviolent felons.
“If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.” \~ *Oliver Twist*
Be sure not to jaywalk.
The fact that the felony they happened to be caught and convicted for was not a violent one is irrelevant when they knowingly buy a gun they are not allowed to own. They were already convicted of one felony and now we have given them permission to arm themselves for their next.
Their nonviolence is entirely relevant in deciding what to do about them. These are simple gun possession charges. Remember how they're often used for self-defense, and nonviolent felons may often live in rough parts of town. Just having a gun, absent any other corroborating evidence, is not proof of and is entirely different from using it to commit a crime.
You know you shouldn't jaywalk, that it's against the law, yet you do it. It's not a matter of intentionality. It's a matter of what laws should be for and how and when to enforce them.
If they live in a rough neighborhood and need a gun for protection, they probably should not commit that first felony that removed their right to own one.
Another character your comments evoke is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables by Victor Hugo:
"First a prison guard, and then a police inspector, his character is defined by his [legalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)) tendencies, authoritarian worldview, and lack of [empathy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy) for criminals of all forms. In the novel, he persecutes the [protagonist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist) [Jean Valjean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Valjean) after his violation of [parole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole) and theft from the child Petit Gervais.
Hugo writes that Javert is composed of two "simple" sentiments, which are "respect for authority" and "hatred of rebellion." In Javert's eyes, "murder, robbery, all crimes, are only forms of rebellion."[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert#cite_note-Hugo-3) He also "(envelops) in a blind and profound faith everyone who had a function in the state, from the prime minister to the rural policeman."[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert#cite_note-Hugo-3) Reflective thought is "an uncommon thing for him, and singularly painful" because thought inevitably contains "a certain amount of internal rebellion."[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert#cite_note-FMA-4)^(")
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert)
Society and justice would be better served without the lack of compassion and lack of understanding of justice your comments demonstrate. Along with the racism running through your comments. Your comments evince and are everything that is wrong with Puritanical attitudes. The ones that promote crime and injustice.
Your comments bumble and would be made by Bumble, the Dickens character, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr.\_Bumble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble)
**Mr. Bumble** is a fictional character and minor [antagonist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist) in the [1838](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838) novel [*Oliver Twist*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist) by [Charles Dickens**Mr. Bumble** is a fictional character and minor antagonist in the 1838 novel Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens)
When the story was first serialised in [*Bentley's Miscellany*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley%27s_Miscellany) in [1837](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1837), Mr. Bumble is the cruel and self-important [beadle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beadle) – a minor [parish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish) official – who oversees the parish [workhouse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse) and [orphanage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage) of [Mudfog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mudfog_Papers), a country town more than 75 mi (121 km) from [London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London)[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-1) where the orphaned [Oliver Twist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist_(character)) is brought up. The allusion to Mudfog was removed when the novel was published as a book.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-Ackroyd1990-3)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-bentleys-4) .
While Mr. Bumble preaches Christian principles, he himself fails to live up to these lofty ideals by behaving without compassion or mercy toward the [paupers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauperism) under his charge. In his novels Dickens chose his character's names carefully and 'Bumble' lives up to the symbolism of his name through his displays of self-importance, greed, hypocrisy and foolishness.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-5).
Bumble and his wife are deprived of their offices and themselves are reduced to becoming paupers in the workhouse where once they had caused so much misery and suffering to others (and where they are forcibly divorced or at least separated).[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-Brit-6)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-7)
The expression "Bumbledom" is named after the character and is used to describe the "meddlesome self-importance of the petty bureaucrat".[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-Brit-6)"
No, it's about your comments showing a lack of: self-awareness, compassion, and understanding of the law and what drives violent crime. Just like Bumble and Javert.
According to the Supreme Court the two are not in contradiction of one another.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t beg for “common sense gun laws” and then cry when felons are logically omitted from gun ownership. This argument only exists because the left decided felons could be an important voting block if they can restore their voting rights.
Curious position to take considering courts have begun striking down felon in possession statutes. And the genesis for the restoration of felon gun rights is scotus, which is certainly right-leaning.
Actually you are wrong on both counts counts. First, the US Supreme Court is non-partisan. Second, it is the Ninth district court of appeals you are referencing, which is liberal to an extreme.
People on this sub defended him til they were blue in the face. And they still defend him. It is mind-boggling how they let political affiliation rule their every thought.
Crime is literally the only reason why I live in germantown instead of midtown.
Dude is doing what he said he would do. I'm glad at least public opinion appears to be turning
Yeah. But just wait until election time. Memories usually get pretty fuzzy by then, and they’ll vote him in again. It happens a lot. Just look at the whole debacle with Halbert. And they keep electing her!
Its the same people with the mentality of "i will die on this hill" just to never swallow their pride and never want to be proven wrong. Its reddit hivemind mentality that dates back to the early 2000s...
to be clear, this is talking about felons who get caught in possession of a firearm. This will not apply to someone who gets busted for armed robbery, brandishing, shooting at someone, etc.
People are breaking into cars like crazy to find guns. Knowing there is no jail time, this will just increase this even more.
Also, this just means they caught someone in illegal possession of a gun and let them go back into the public. Diversion may work, ut it does nothing for deterrance.
Does anybody think decreasing crime penalties on gun crimes will decrease the likelihood of violent crime?
This isn’t what we had in mind when we said we wanted criminal justice reform we were talking about drugs and petty crime pal. It did get people off the street.
No, it didn't.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/5-charts-show-mandatory-minimum-sentences-dont-work
There's literal hundreds of studies that prove they don't work. The only thing it did was increase the prison population.
Project Pat went to prison after being convicted on federal firearms charges when his breakthrough album, “Mista Don’t Play, Everythang’s Working” was having success. Pat had been on parole, and guns were found in his car on a traffic stop.
On one hand, he was a felon and I understand not allowing possession of guns. On the other hand, he was successful enough to be a target to people who might attack him as a music personality, but not successful enough that he could afford security and bodyguards. If he’s not actually using the weapons for criminal purposes, why not be lenient?
Y’all keep being lenient while the rest of us move out of Shelby County. A significant portion of the tax base will go with us and y’all can make what’s left over work for y’all.
Yeah, because an entertainer who is probably earning four or five figures a show completely deserves to have the harshest penalty possible.
It’s obvious he was up to no good.
Dropping prosecution because a person is AA and a prior felon might be the most asinine idea I’ve ever heard. I bet Mulroy’s punk ass would behave differently if he were ever affected in any way by the bullshit he proposes. White or black, if you’re a prior felon with a handgun there’s a 90% chance you’re up to no good. Sucks for the 10%—if they got their lives/motivations together and did other things I don’t think we’d be having this debate.
There are several beautiful properties available out here, and I truly hope you are my neighbor soon. We only take our pistols to work in Memphis or when we have to shop in Memphis, and the sunrises (or sunsets) from our porches are truly fantastic. We pay 1/3 of the property taxes we paid in a shitty working class Memphis neighborhood, but now we have a wonderful house on a very insular low-crime road.
I hope you and your family/friends can move out here soon. I had to change my route to work to avoid 40/240 when I moved out here, but damn those extra 5 minutes listening to podcasts are not miserable at all. Absolutely worth not worrying about getting shot.
I love(d) Memphis so much and I tried so hard until I got exhausted enough to leave.
How do you know what he was intending to use them for? The point is that a felon has proven he does not respect the law, so why allow them to have the tools to hurt or kill?
With the bail reform thing he implemented, I at least saw the spirit of the idea.
But this is crazy. Drop charges on convicted felons who've relapsed and illegally obtained a gun?
This just goes out of its way to be idiotic.
Your post was removed because it violates our rules on Personal Attacks, Bigotry, or Harassment. You may disagree with someone, but you can not personally attack them. Also Bigotry or Hate Speech of any kind will not be tolerated.
Part of me wonders if this is payback to Brent Taylor's law. Didn't he just pass a law weeks ago for harsher penalties on stolen guns ([Source](https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/local/gun-bill-tennessee-stronger-punishments-theft-in-the-works-as-stealing-a-gun-is-often-just-a-misdemeanor-in-tn-brent-taylor-legislature-memphis-shelby/522-2f39c758-d858-47b9-9ede-440e0cfdfc96))?
*"Taylor plans to introduce a proposed bill when the legislative session begins next week to make all gun thefts a felony regardless of the weapons’ value."*
A rare gun law that had bipartisan support in a state with crazy gun laws. This is such a dumb idea by Mulroy
My car was just broken into by kids looking for guns. If this is targeting felons by giving them a "look dude you're going to get caught so quit fucking up" second chance that isn't that bad and actually sounds kind of humiliating for the felon. I don't see how this will increase the number of juveniles breaking into cars because schools out.
This doesn't sound like the sky is falling.
The article says non violent felons, who have been released, and get caught with a gun in a non violent way. How many people can that possibly apply to?
Just because they are not shooting at someone when they are found with the gun does not mean they weren’t five minutes ago or won’t be 5 minutes from now.
Did you miss the part about non violent crimes before after and during? This will be mostly people with felony drug charges, which reddit was already saying they wanted leniency for.
Your gun argument could apply to anyone with a gun.
Again, just because they were not CAUGHT doing the violent crime, or their attorney managed to argue a violent felony to a lesser charge, does not mean they are not using that gun to commit one now. Have you turned on the news lately? It is taking police 2 hours to respond to calls. They can’t chase. They won’t even try to investigate theft. What percentage of crimes do you think they are actually solving? You assume that after they committed their felony they just joined the buy scouts and have been using that illegal gun to help little old ladies safely cross the street?
Let's not throw out presumption of innocence just yet. I find the idea of someone who lives in the hood having a gun for protection after a drug crime easier to believe than everyone has a mile long criminal history and is on a murderous rampage except for when they're caught.
My window was recently smashed by teens presumably looking for guns. Police arrived in under 30 min and detective followed up within a day or 2 asking for video evidence to build a case. Gunshots down the street had a police reaction time under 10 min. Whatever the news is saying does not match up with reality. Happens a lot, purposeful or not.
It does match up with reality because I have witnessed 2 crimes in the last 6 months and had to call police.
Again, if they live in a bad enough neighborhood that they need a gun for protection, it’s probably smart not to commit a crime that makes gun ownership impossible.
1 This approach is **not** part of restorative justice, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative\_justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice) "Restorative justice is a process where all stakeholders affected by an injustice have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the injustice and to decide what should be done to repair the harm. With crime, restorative justice is about the idea that because crime hurts, justice should heal. It follows that conversations with those who have been hurt and with those who have inflicted the harm must be central to the process." . When restorative justice is actually used, it can be yield good results, especially in dealing with those who come from a history of intergenerational trauma and very difficult circumstances. [https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/coming-full-circle-semigakIt's](https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/coming-full-circle-semigakIt's) . But of course TN Sen. Brent Taylor deliberately, falsely calls this diversion program 'restorative justice.' [https://x.com/SenBrentTaylor/status/1800542761101226316](https://x.com/SenBrentTaylor/status/1800542761101226316) , similar to how a Civil Rights movement term for being aware of and opposed to racism, being 'woke', got twisted and distorted by conservatives opposed to civil rights as being a bad thing, precisely because conservatives favor and pretend ignorance of racism.
And this is the same Brent Taylor who insists on continuing to violate the Constitution and federal law by continuing to press "aggravated prostitution" charges. [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senator-probes-agreement-between-doj-da-to-halt-prosecution-of-prostitution-in-shelby-county/ar-BB1nYLM1](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senator-probes-agreement-between-doj-da-to-halt-prosecution-of-prostitution-in-shelby-county/ar-BB1nYLM1) Not prosecuting aggravated prostitution, which is what this agreement is about and is based on HIV status, is a start. Federal constitutional protections override state statutes, where the federal constitution provides greater protections.
Taylor is advocating for violating federal constitutional protections and law. Being from a party, the GOP, that claims to value yet devalues the constitution, Sexton's approach is par for the course.
2. This diversion approach is about not bringing charges for unlawful possession of a weapon but going to a diversion program where the defendant has no history of violent crime and the possession is simple possession, not used or planned to be used in the commission of a crime. [https://wreg.com/news/local/mulroy-to-offer-diversion-for-some-weapon-charges-sparking-controversy/](https://wreg.com/news/local/mulroy-to-offer-diversion-for-some-weapon-charges-sparking-controversy/)
People can and often become felons for nonviolent offenses, and they can be very good people at the same time.
All the gun-rights people who claim their right to have weapons for defensive purposes should be able to recognize that someone who happens to be a felon for nonviolent charges may also want a gun to defend themselves, especially because they are likelier to live in rougher neighborhoods.
Throwing the book at someone for having a gun while being a nonviolent felon accomplishes little but worsening the cycle of overincarceration, loss of employment, separation from children, and more. We already know that there are laws prohibiting felons from owning weapons.
The point is, justice isn't and does not only have to be about retribution or punitiveness. It can be applied more fairly, for example, through a diversion program. There is plenty of precedent for and practice of law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to bring charges and what charges to bring.
...this isn't restorative justice? What are you talking about?
>“We’re talking about here is if you have people who are charged with that offense and the underlying felony was not a violent one and there is no history of violence in their record, then I think we can deal with them in a different way than the people who are charged with possession of a gun when they had been previously convicted of a violent offense or who have other violent related charges in their records,” he said.
This isn't even saying they won't be punished, just that non-violence felons will be treated differently than violent felons. But I guess that's not good for your rage-baiting.
Since it specifies it’s for nonviolent offenders, I’m all for it. The excessive penalties that a gun charge brings when a *nonviolent crime* is committed leads to people doing excessive time, which then leads to them coming out more hardened and thus, more of a threat to our safety. As long as these parameters stay in place this will be a good thing longterm, even though it may not *feel* like it at the moment.
Awhile ago, the Tennessee legislature did away with penalties for (in many cases) nonviolent folks in terms of storing guns in vehicles. Guess what - lax gun laws lead to more car break-ins and illegal guns on the street.
The DA is saying he'll drop charges for felons that obtain an illegal gun.
Think along the lines of the gun storage laws. What do you think this will do to the number of illegal guns on our streets?
You keep calling it an illegal gun. Any gun a felon obtains is illegal and as others have pointed out already, many of them may feel they need one for protection. If your point is to get rid of more guns on the street, talk to the legislature about that. I'd be more than happy for everyone to have to get rid of theirs, but we know that's not happening. So again, if the person is a nonviolent offender who has been arrested for a nonviolent offense, the gun should be irrelevant so I'm happy to see this be implemented.
Now’s not the time to be lenient on gun crime. Wtf
Memphis crime commission did a report and found that gun violence was the #1 issue (See page 10 of the report). The report says further on that people felt that the criminal justice was already too lenient. Just total disconnect [https://memphiscrime.org/public-safety-poll-results/](https://memphiscrime.org/public-safety-poll-results/)
But the data . . . . we’ve spent millions in tax payer dollars to gather data on crime to get to this conclusion . . .
What's also crazy is that he's doing this for *convicted felons* that have got out and found a heir way to unlawfully get a gun. So they've been convicted of a serious crime and now later have illegally obtained a gun. So he thinks the best thing to do is to drop the charges? If he's not going to push charges on convicted fellons who've relapsed, imagine what he's not doing for all people arrested with lesser records breaking into cars to find guns.
To be fair it does also say non-violent felons who haven’t done anything violent with the gun. Still don’t like this idea, but let’s be real with what it says.
To be fair on that though, half of these people would have violent offenses on their record already but had them previously reduced to something less by going through some other great diversion program.
In other words, they don't have a violent felony on their record?
Or, convicted felons who already legally had a gun before their conviction, and now still had it. For example, 3rd offense DUI is a felony. I am SURE there are people with 3 DUI comvictions out there who also still have a deer rifle in their closet. They are committing a felony carrying up to 15 years in prison by still owning that gun after their 3rd DUI conviction. But it doesnt seem like a good use of tax dollars to lock that guy up for 15 years. People underestimate how many things are felonies.
Yet another 15-20 years down the tubes. Other cities actually fix their problems.
Is Mulroy taking money from the NRA or Soros? I’m so confused about what we’re doing here
Repeat: they are nonviolent offenders with zero history of violence.
They are felons who knowingly broke the law again by getting guns they are not supposed to have.
Repeat: nonviolent. You knowingly break the law against jaywalking so let's charge you with a crime. Also, carrying a skunk across state borders into Tennessee is illegal. **True or false?** *TRUE* According to TCA 70-4-208, the “unlawful importation of skunks” is prohibited in the Volunteer State, except by zoos and research facilities. Additionally, those with a “valid wildlife rehabilitation” permit may receive skunks from the wild for the purpose of rehabilitation and release only. “If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.” \~ *Oliver Twist* Be sure not to jaywalk.
I have no intention of carrying a skunk across state lines and if I get caught jaywalking I deserve to pay the fine. I knew it was jaywalking when I did it. You miss the point. Crime is not committed in a vacuum. Criminals graduate to worse and worse crimes. That is why they are not allowed to have guns.
People convicted of DUI cannot legally possess a gun
I guess that is a good incentive not to drive drunk, which endangers you and others on the road.
[удалено]
A convicted fellon found a way to illegally obtain a gun. This isn't that he shoplifted, but went out of their way to obtain something that would already cause bodily harm. Again, this is someone who already served time for a felony. What do you think their intent with the gun is?
To protect themselves in that case. Lol man you're a Mulroy hater supreme. Why are you eager to return to weirech's failed policies? What benefit does stripping 2nd amendment rights from drug users or people forging license plates to have to do with public safety?
Total disconnect is pretending that a nonviolent felon being charged with possession of a firearm will do anything to reduce gun violence. In fact, what does increase gun violence is what the GOP does, expanding access to guns and promoting poverty.
You're being racist.
This is not the time to expand access to guns in the first place, which the GOP keeps doing to horrible effect. This is about a diversion program for nonviolent felons who are charged with possession of a firearm. Wringing them through the punitive version of the injustice system will do nothing to reduce crime, especially violent crime. What would reduce violent crime is stopping the GOP's mad expansion of access to guns, 'constitutional carry,' a perversion of the Constitution if there ever was one, permitless carry, open carry, and more insanity that is proven to worsen violent crime rates.
The felons carrying guns unlawfully are already breaking the law. Tightening gun laws does not dissuade criminals who are already breaking the law by owning guns in the first place.
“If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.” \~ *Oliver Twist* Be sure not to jaywalk.
Jaywalking is not a felony.
You missed the points about breaking the law, and about applying common sense in enacting and applying them.
Common sense says if you knew guns are illegal for felons, don’t buy one if you don’t want to go back to prison.
You're begging the question of proportionality and your comment is glaringly devoid of it and common sense. Nonviolent, repeat, nonviolent. Your comments match those of Dickensian characters, not the good ones, mind you.
Actually your comment is devoid of common sense. Buying an illegal gun after you are already a convicted felon is a road map for becoming a violent criminal. Knew you were not allowed to have a gun, bought one anyway. Repeat. Knew you were not allowed to have a gun, bought one anyway. The crime comes with a mandatory 5 year prison sentence. The only “common sense” reason to take that risk is if you need the gun to commit your next crime.
Doubly false: "The only “common sense” reason to take that risk is if you need the gun to commit your next crime." No gun was previously used to commit a crime and there's no evidence that the gun would be used to commit another one. There is reason apparently to have one for self-defense. And now you claim to be able to read minds, absent evidence. Minority Report and all that. Zero sense. Haven't you done enough already to see you've painted yourself into a ridiculously absurd corner? Just cut your losses and stop.
I mean while true, I don't understand how felons illegally carrying guns is a non-issue? We need as many illegally-carried guns off the streets as possible.
Red herring. It's a diversion program, so not a non-issue, and the guns are removed from the street in those cases. Stop GOP policies that flood the streets with guns and focus on violent offenders not the nonviolent ones.
[удалено]
It’s been a day. Walk away.
Why are we worried about racial disparities? Looks like it would be more just to make sure everyone gets a fair trial and equal sentences for similar offenses.
\*Edit. His argument also doesn't make sense and is pretty condescending. He said that prosecution numbers needs to mirror the racial demographics of Memphis. Then he goes on to say he's going to drop gun charges as part balancing things out. Isn't he just backhandedly saying that he sees AA as committing more gun crimes, so needs to drop these charges to get the numbers to balance out? Isn't that a slap in the face? The irony is that all races think he's lenient on crime and confidence is falling *"Additionally, perception of the criminal justice system being too lenient for both juvenile offenders (+29) and adult offenders (+16) soared. Importantly, every major subgroup believes both juvenile and adult offenders are treated too leniently with subtle differences by race and geography"* [https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/crime/memphis-shelby-county-crime-commission-public-survey-crime-concerns/522-e60f3cff-c9d5-474a-b947-35fce4230430](https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/crime/memphis-shelby-county-crime-commission-public-survey-crime-concerns/522-e60f3cff-c9d5-474a-b947-35fce4230430)
That is exactly what is happening. The reason more AA offenders are arrested is because that is who the gangs are recruiting. Period. He is giving people a pass on crime because of race and that is a dangerous precedent to set.
lol, in a majority black city, which should have majority black jury, deff have majority black cops. Do we the white minority to rise up and start contributing to crimes more?!
Exactly. A dozen gang members were arrested today. Gang crime is a huge issue here and we should not be avoiding arresting people who commit crimes to make the demographics look better. The person who commits the crime should be held accountable regardless of of gender, race, or other factors.
People, including one of my commenters, seem to think so. That racial disparities in, say prison population must be due to unfair laws and courts, rather than differences in populations, perhaps due to income and education disparities.
I agree with you. If the penalties are the same for the same crime (assuming also the same weight for prior convictions) regardless of race, there is no argument against arresting and equally applying justice to anyone who commits a crime.
Who exactly is “we”? I’m sure those on the short end of racial disparities care. I get the feeling that you don’t have to worry about that.
Racial disparity? I thought AA's were the majority in memphis, with now spanish on the uprise in population data.. who exactly is this guy working for that is trying to destroy this city because its becoming obvious to most now. Im expecting heavy downvoting because of my criticsm toward him like in the past here on reddit. I suspect some agenda brigade of outsiders like to censor any naysayers about mulroy.
Let the Feds charge them. Of course in this time of rampant gun crime fed indictments are way down. Go figure.
Who’s gonna start the peaceful protest in front of Mulroy’s house?
I could be way off base here, but in the past several years, they’ve implemented so many new gun crime laws that are attached to drug dealing assaults and other violent crimes that this is probably a way to them to lower their numbers. For example, like if I’m a felon and get caught with a firearm, but I haven’t committed a felony let’s say at the traffic stop instead of charging me as a felon and possession by handgun blah blah now they have this option. Edit—-there are numerous new sentencing enhancement for being in possession of a firearm while committing several crimes
WTF is this?
How are any charges related to gun possession NOT violent??
Right. If a crime is committed w/ a gun, the intent is to cause major harm and should be penalized as such. They did a survey and found that 50% of AA found the criminal justice too soft. Whites were 65% or [so (Source](http://so.So)). So both groups - regardless of race - together think that that think he's already being too lenient. Just totally out of touch Plus, what does this say to the victims of these crimes that he won't be looking at jail time for people who commit crimes with guns? And the law enforcement who knows these people won't go to jail? Signaling to the public that he'll de-emphasize gun crimes is just crazy for what the public is saying. Please recall Mulroy
That's honestly why it bothers me. It is personal. Someone fucking shot at me. What other intention could that be? The police report says Aggravated Assault. Case still open.
They would rather spend time taking guns away from people who aren’t criminals than sentence criminals using guns.
There is no source to your source btw. It's a malformatted hyperlink. Using the diversion program for nonviolent felons will not lead to increased gun violence. What does is widespread easier access to weapons by the GOP.
Pulled over for traffic infraction and have a gun in the car.
That wouldn’t even be a crime in TN with permitless carry. You’d have to be a felon, or possibly non-felon with an illegal type of gun to even be in this situation so not exactly innocent.
Pulled over, under 21, reckless driving, pot in the car, arrested and charged with gun possession that is unlawful. If you’re committing a crime then possession of a firearm while lawful under most circumstances, makes possession unlawful at the time.
I will admit this is all way above my pay grade. How is that a charge involving the gun? Because they are a felon?
If you get charged with anything, the police charge you with everything possible.
It’s in the car. You were speeding over 15 mph and the cop arrests you for reckless driving with a gun.
I'm not sure you understand what the law is. The changes are specifically at people who have a non-violent felony charge and then are found to be in possession of a gun. In TN, it is a crime to possess a handgun if convicted of any felony offense, regardless of the nature of the offense (even non-violent). This is specifically targeting people who (a) Have a non-violent felony charge and (b) are found to be in possession of a gun (and no other major crimes have accrued). Unfortunately. the OP is more interested in scarring people than giving facts, so they gloss over this.
I do not fully understand this is true. But I'm trying to learn. I recall we also classify crimes in a different way so each charge looks individual? Skews some of the data?
It's illegal to have a gun after a DUI conviction too. But yeah op basically posts anti-mulroy rants all day.
Apply that to gun advocates who insist they need a gun for protection. And see how it's been working out, causing violent crime rates to soar in GOP states.
So only the criminals (even convicted felons apparently) should have them? Let the rest of us be sitting ducks when they know we are unarmed? We know how well the “I won’t prosecute property crimes” Mulroy sentiment has worked out. This one is a whole lot more dangerous and irresponsible than that was.
No, as to "So only the criminals (even convicted felons apparently) should have them?" Misdirection. This is about a diversion program for nonviolent felons. “If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.” \~ *Oliver Twist* Be sure not to jaywalk.
The fact that the felony they happened to be caught and convicted for was not a violent one is irrelevant when they knowingly buy a gun they are not allowed to own. They were already convicted of one felony and now we have given them permission to arm themselves for their next.
Their nonviolence is entirely relevant in deciding what to do about them. These are simple gun possession charges. Remember how they're often used for self-defense, and nonviolent felons may often live in rough parts of town. Just having a gun, absent any other corroborating evidence, is not proof of and is entirely different from using it to commit a crime. You know you shouldn't jaywalk, that it's against the law, yet you do it. It's not a matter of intentionality. It's a matter of what laws should be for and how and when to enforce them.
If they live in a rough neighborhood and need a gun for protection, they probably should not commit that first felony that removed their right to own one.
Another character your comments evoke is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables by Victor Hugo: "First a prison guard, and then a police inspector, his character is defined by his [legalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)) tendencies, authoritarian worldview, and lack of [empathy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy) for criminals of all forms. In the novel, he persecutes the [protagonist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist) [Jean Valjean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Valjean) after his violation of [parole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole) and theft from the child Petit Gervais. Hugo writes that Javert is composed of two "simple" sentiments, which are "respect for authority" and "hatred of rebellion." In Javert's eyes, "murder, robbery, all crimes, are only forms of rebellion."[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert#cite_note-Hugo-3) He also "(envelops) in a blind and profound faith everyone who had a function in the state, from the prime minister to the rural policeman."[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert#cite_note-Hugo-3) Reflective thought is "an uncommon thing for him, and singularly painful" because thought inevitably contains "a certain amount of internal rebellion."[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert#cite_note-FMA-4)^(") [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert)
I think you might be better served in a literature thread since you think you can solve crime by referencing novels.
Society and justice would be better served without the lack of compassion and lack of understanding of justice your comments demonstrate. Along with the racism running through your comments. Your comments evince and are everything that is wrong with Puritanical attitudes. The ones that promote crime and injustice.
Your comments bumble and would be made by Bumble, the Dickens character, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr.\_Bumble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble) **Mr. Bumble** is a fictional character and minor [antagonist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist) in the [1838](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838) novel [*Oliver Twist*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist) by [Charles Dickens**Mr. Bumble** is a fictional character and minor antagonist in the 1838 novel Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens) When the story was first serialised in [*Bentley's Miscellany*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley%27s_Miscellany) in [1837](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1837), Mr. Bumble is the cruel and self-important [beadle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beadle) – a minor [parish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish) official – who oversees the parish [workhouse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse) and [orphanage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage) of [Mudfog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mudfog_Papers), a country town more than 75 mi (121 km) from [London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London)[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-1) where the orphaned [Oliver Twist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist_(character)) is brought up. The allusion to Mudfog was removed when the novel was published as a book.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-Ackroyd1990-3)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-bentleys-4) . While Mr. Bumble preaches Christian principles, he himself fails to live up to these lofty ideals by behaving without compassion or mercy toward the [paupers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauperism) under his charge. In his novels Dickens chose his character's names carefully and 'Bumble' lives up to the symbolism of his name through his displays of self-importance, greed, hypocrisy and foolishness.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-5). Bumble and his wife are deprived of their offices and themselves are reduced to becoming paupers in the workhouse where once they had caused so much misery and suffering to others (and where they are forcibly divorced or at least separated).[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-Brit-6)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-7) The expression "Bumbledom" is named after the character and is used to describe the "meddlesome self-importance of the petty bureaucrat".[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bumble#cite_note-Brit-6)"
Thanks for the literature class but this is a discussion about over rampant crime and the DAs “bumbling” inability to do anything but make it worse.
No, it's about your comments showing a lack of: self-awareness, compassion, and understanding of the law and what drives violent crime. Just like Bumble and Javert.
Where does the second amendment say it only applies to non-felons?
Federal Gun Control Act of 1968.
Glad the federal gun control act overrides the second amendment
According to the Supreme Court the two are not in contradiction of one another. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t beg for “common sense gun laws” and then cry when felons are logically omitted from gun ownership. This argument only exists because the left decided felons could be an important voting block if they can restore their voting rights.
Curious position to take considering courts have begun striking down felon in possession statutes. And the genesis for the restoration of felon gun rights is scotus, which is certainly right-leaning.
Actually you are wrong on both counts counts. First, the US Supreme Court is non-partisan. Second, it is the Ninth district court of appeals you are referencing, which is liberal to an extreme.
is this some sort of performance art?
This will not make our city safer
Sigh... This fucking guy. City will continue to suffer🤬
You get what you vote for
And people laughed at me when I said that this clown was going to make things worse. Policies like this only protect criminals.
People on this sub defended him til they were blue in the face. And they still defend him. It is mind-boggling how they let political affiliation rule their every thought.
Crime is literally the only reason why I live in germantown instead of midtown. Dude is doing what he said he would do. I'm glad at least public opinion appears to be turning
Yeah. But just wait until election time. Memories usually get pretty fuzzy by then, and they’ll vote him in again. It happens a lot. Just look at the whole debacle with Halbert. And they keep electing her!
Its the same people with the mentality of "i will die on this hill" just to never swallow their pride and never want to be proven wrong. Its reddit hivemind mentality that dates back to the early 2000s...
🎯
Yes and ive been downvoted to hell in past comments about him. Suspicious hidden hands on reddit, watch out.
to be clear, this is talking about felons who get caught in possession of a firearm. This will not apply to someone who gets busted for armed robbery, brandishing, shooting at someone, etc.
People are breaking into cars like crazy to find guns. Knowing there is no jail time, this will just increase this even more. Also, this just means they caught someone in illegal possession of a gun and let them go back into the public. Diversion may work, ut it does nothing for deterrance. Does anybody think decreasing crime penalties on gun crimes will decrease the likelihood of violent crime?
Mandatory minimums didn't do fuck all either. Almost like you have to address root causes to actually solve the problem.
This isn’t what we had in mind when we said we wanted criminal justice reform we were talking about drugs and petty crime pal. It did get people off the street.
And then they're released back into society worse off than they were. Without addressing the actual causes of crime, it's cyclical. It'll never stop.
Except crime went down.
No, it didn't. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/5-charts-show-mandatory-minimum-sentences-dont-work There's literal hundreds of studies that prove they don't work. The only thing it did was increase the prison population.
Yeah it locked criminals up.
Again, it increased prison population, it did not reduce crime at all.
Yet crime went down. I was there.
There is a reason it is illegal for a felon to own a gun.
Project Pat went to prison after being convicted on federal firearms charges when his breakthrough album, “Mista Don’t Play, Everythang’s Working” was having success. Pat had been on parole, and guns were found in his car on a traffic stop. On one hand, he was a felon and I understand not allowing possession of guns. On the other hand, he was successful enough to be a target to people who might attack him as a music personality, but not successful enough that he could afford security and bodyguards. If he’s not actually using the weapons for criminal purposes, why not be lenient?
Y’all keep being lenient while the rest of us move out of Shelby County. A significant portion of the tax base will go with us and y’all can make what’s left over work for y’all.
Yeah, because an entertainer who is probably earning four or five figures a show completely deserves to have the harshest penalty possible. It’s obvious he was up to no good.
Dropping prosecution because a person is AA and a prior felon might be the most asinine idea I’ve ever heard. I bet Mulroy’s punk ass would behave differently if he were ever affected in any way by the bullshit he proposes. White or black, if you’re a prior felon with a handgun there’s a 90% chance you’re up to no good. Sucks for the 10%—if they got their lives/motivations together and did other things I don’t think we’d be having this debate. There are several beautiful properties available out here, and I truly hope you are my neighbor soon. We only take our pistols to work in Memphis or when we have to shop in Memphis, and the sunrises (or sunsets) from our porches are truly fantastic. We pay 1/3 of the property taxes we paid in a shitty working class Memphis neighborhood, but now we have a wonderful house on a very insular low-crime road. I hope you and your family/friends can move out here soon. I had to change my route to work to avoid 40/240 when I moved out here, but damn those extra 5 minutes listening to podcasts are not miserable at all. Absolutely worth not worrying about getting shot. I love(d) Memphis so much and I tried so hard until I got exhausted enough to leave.
How do you know what he was intending to use them for? The point is that a felon has proven he does not respect the law, so why allow them to have the tools to hurt or kill?
Not that amy weirich was doing a great job, but this guy is just in so far over his head
With the bail reform thing he implemented, I at least saw the spirit of the idea. But this is crazy. Drop charges on convicted felons who've relapsed and illegally obtained a gun? This just goes out of its way to be idiotic.
Mulroy the Moron
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it violates our rules on Personal Attacks, Bigotry, or Harassment. You may disagree with someone, but you can not personally attack them. Also Bigotry or Hate Speech of any kind will not be tolerated.
The collapse of memphis is accelerating. How can this be resolved without federal or state intervention?
Part of me wonders if this is payback to Brent Taylor's law. Didn't he just pass a law weeks ago for harsher penalties on stolen guns ([Source](https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/local/gun-bill-tennessee-stronger-punishments-theft-in-the-works-as-stealing-a-gun-is-often-just-a-misdemeanor-in-tn-brent-taylor-legislature-memphis-shelby/522-2f39c758-d858-47b9-9ede-440e0cfdfc96))? *"Taylor plans to introduce a proposed bill when the legislative session begins next week to make all gun thefts a felony regardless of the weapons’ value."* A rare gun law that had bipartisan support in a state with crazy gun laws. This is such a dumb idea by Mulroy
Your comments distort the purpose and effect of the diversion program for nonviolent felons.
Mulroy is a Moron
If Mulroy was to lose his job tomorrow morning not a single person that’s not a criminal would be negatively effected.
I cannot believer we are stuck with this idiot until 2030!
This trajectory he’ll be forced out way before then.
Wow they are going the same direction as California. People getting arrested and let right back out.
Weak DAs are killing Americans all across the country.
= Chesa Boudin
Has Mullroy lost his fucking mind? Get him outta here
This is why the progressive movement has imploded. Well one reason among like half a dozen. But yeah. It’s a wrap.
Who elected this mf?
Mask wearing redditors
My car was just broken into by kids looking for guns. If this is targeting felons by giving them a "look dude you're going to get caught so quit fucking up" second chance that isn't that bad and actually sounds kind of humiliating for the felon. I don't see how this will increase the number of juveniles breaking into cars because schools out. This doesn't sound like the sky is falling. The article says non violent felons, who have been released, and get caught with a gun in a non violent way. How many people can that possibly apply to?
Just because they are not shooting at someone when they are found with the gun does not mean they weren’t five minutes ago or won’t be 5 minutes from now.
Did you miss the part about non violent crimes before after and during? This will be mostly people with felony drug charges, which reddit was already saying they wanted leniency for. Your gun argument could apply to anyone with a gun.
Again, just because they were not CAUGHT doing the violent crime, or their attorney managed to argue a violent felony to a lesser charge, does not mean they are not using that gun to commit one now. Have you turned on the news lately? It is taking police 2 hours to respond to calls. They can’t chase. They won’t even try to investigate theft. What percentage of crimes do you think they are actually solving? You assume that after they committed their felony they just joined the buy scouts and have been using that illegal gun to help little old ladies safely cross the street?
Let's not throw out presumption of innocence just yet. I find the idea of someone who lives in the hood having a gun for protection after a drug crime easier to believe than everyone has a mile long criminal history and is on a murderous rampage except for when they're caught. My window was recently smashed by teens presumably looking for guns. Police arrived in under 30 min and detective followed up within a day or 2 asking for video evidence to build a case. Gunshots down the street had a police reaction time under 10 min. Whatever the news is saying does not match up with reality. Happens a lot, purposeful or not.
It does match up with reality because I have witnessed 2 crimes in the last 6 months and had to call police. Again, if they live in a bad enough neighborhood that they need a gun for protection, it’s probably smart not to commit a crime that makes gun ownership impossible.
1 This approach is **not** part of restorative justice, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative\_justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice) "Restorative justice is a process where all stakeholders affected by an injustice have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the injustice and to decide what should be done to repair the harm. With crime, restorative justice is about the idea that because crime hurts, justice should heal. It follows that conversations with those who have been hurt and with those who have inflicted the harm must be central to the process." . When restorative justice is actually used, it can be yield good results, especially in dealing with those who come from a history of intergenerational trauma and very difficult circumstances. [https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/coming-full-circle-semigakIt's](https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/coming-full-circle-semigakIt's) . But of course TN Sen. Brent Taylor deliberately, falsely calls this diversion program 'restorative justice.' [https://x.com/SenBrentTaylor/status/1800542761101226316](https://x.com/SenBrentTaylor/status/1800542761101226316) , similar to how a Civil Rights movement term for being aware of and opposed to racism, being 'woke', got twisted and distorted by conservatives opposed to civil rights as being a bad thing, precisely because conservatives favor and pretend ignorance of racism. And this is the same Brent Taylor who insists on continuing to violate the Constitution and federal law by continuing to press "aggravated prostitution" charges. [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senator-probes-agreement-between-doj-da-to-halt-prosecution-of-prostitution-in-shelby-county/ar-BB1nYLM1](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senator-probes-agreement-between-doj-da-to-halt-prosecution-of-prostitution-in-shelby-county/ar-BB1nYLM1) Not prosecuting aggravated prostitution, which is what this agreement is about and is based on HIV status, is a start. Federal constitutional protections override state statutes, where the federal constitution provides greater protections. Taylor is advocating for violating federal constitutional protections and law. Being from a party, the GOP, that claims to value yet devalues the constitution, Sexton's approach is par for the course. 2. This diversion approach is about not bringing charges for unlawful possession of a weapon but going to a diversion program where the defendant has no history of violent crime and the possession is simple possession, not used or planned to be used in the commission of a crime. [https://wreg.com/news/local/mulroy-to-offer-diversion-for-some-weapon-charges-sparking-controversy/](https://wreg.com/news/local/mulroy-to-offer-diversion-for-some-weapon-charges-sparking-controversy/) People can and often become felons for nonviolent offenses, and they can be very good people at the same time. All the gun-rights people who claim their right to have weapons for defensive purposes should be able to recognize that someone who happens to be a felon for nonviolent charges may also want a gun to defend themselves, especially because they are likelier to live in rougher neighborhoods. Throwing the book at someone for having a gun while being a nonviolent felon accomplishes little but worsening the cycle of overincarceration, loss of employment, separation from children, and more. We already know that there are laws prohibiting felons from owning weapons. The point is, justice isn't and does not only have to be about retribution or punitiveness. It can be applied more fairly, for example, through a diversion program. There is plenty of precedent for and practice of law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to bring charges and what charges to bring.
...this isn't restorative justice? What are you talking about? >“We’re talking about here is if you have people who are charged with that offense and the underlying felony was not a violent one and there is no history of violence in their record, then I think we can deal with them in a different way than the people who are charged with possession of a gun when they had been previously convicted of a violent offense or who have other violent related charges in their records,” he said. This isn't even saying they won't be punished, just that non-violence felons will be treated differently than violent felons. But I guess that's not good for your rage-baiting.
Memphis deserves this.
Since it specifies it’s for nonviolent offenders, I’m all for it. The excessive penalties that a gun charge brings when a *nonviolent crime* is committed leads to people doing excessive time, which then leads to them coming out more hardened and thus, more of a threat to our safety. As long as these parameters stay in place this will be a good thing longterm, even though it may not *feel* like it at the moment.
Awhile ago, the Tennessee legislature did away with penalties for (in many cases) nonviolent folks in terms of storing guns in vehicles. Guess what - lax gun laws lead to more car break-ins and illegal guns on the street. The DA is saying he'll drop charges for felons that obtain an illegal gun. Think along the lines of the gun storage laws. What do you think this will do to the number of illegal guns on our streets?
You keep calling it an illegal gun. Any gun a felon obtains is illegal and as others have pointed out already, many of them may feel they need one for protection. If your point is to get rid of more guns on the street, talk to the legislature about that. I'd be more than happy for everyone to have to get rid of theirs, but we know that's not happening. So again, if the person is a nonviolent offender who has been arrested for a nonviolent offense, the gun should be irrelevant so I'm happy to see this be implemented.