Taft2016
Verified User
Discretion is done on a case-by-case basis. A blanket policy of non-prosecution is a de facto repealing of a law.
BTW: what is "RWA"?
4 Police Tricks to Nab You For Pot and How You Can Beat Them
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Discretion is done on a case-by-case basis. A blanket policy of non-prosecution is a de facto repealing of a law.
BTW: what is "RWA"?
Taft2016
Verified User
Of the lawless society you envision?
Where law enforcement officers and prosecutors get to invent their own interpretations of the laws, and enforce or not enforce laws based on their own individual assessments?
You bet. When a person has built something up with their lives, anarchy is a threat.
For losers who've accomplished nothing, I can see the appeal.
I think you have 2 misconceptions going on at the same time right now.
1. I am not fan of anarchy, I am opposed to unjust laws.
2 Here where you misunderstand;
For any charge?
What gives a prosecutor the right to determine the validity or invalidty of a law? When were prosecutors introduced into the legislative process, enabling them to strike down laws?
No, not for any charge. He didn't say for any charge.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are obviously lying because you've said that you don't think cops should be charged for mistakes in the line of duty.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
It is 100% IMMPOSSIBLE to avoid breaking the law in this day and age. Every man women and child in America will have commited at least a dozen felonies, and often exponentially more, in their life times.
Taft2016
Verified User
I don't understand the connection that your mind is making between this and law enforcement people all making up their own minds regarding which laws to enforce/disregard on an individual basis.
Taft2016
Verified User
Here's where you misunderstand. Law enforcement is what? It is "law enforcement."
Their job is to enforce the laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures. If you don't like "unjust laws," your problem is not with law enforcement, it is with lawmakers.
Thus endeth today's Civics 101 lecture.
He wasn't clear, which is why I ask a clarifying question. Is that OK with you?
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
maybe like charging a civilian with negligent homicide when their gun is accidentally discharged and kills another versus filing no charges against a cop who does the same thing because there was no criminal intent. isn't that deciding which laws to enforce and disregard on an individual basis?
Taft2016
Verified User
Allow me to break some news to you....
The police are not the sole operators of the criminal justice system. The prosecutors decide whether or not to charge someone with that type of shooting. The matter is then presented to a grand jury, who decides whether or not the charges have any validity.
And that entire process? Guess what! Police are also put through the prosecutor's review and grand jury process whenever they strike someone with their firearms.
If your District Attorney does not present police involved shootings to grand juries, that's an issue to take up with your District Attorney, not the police.
Thus endeth today's second lesson in Civics 101.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/02/24/alyssa-brame-eileen-mcnamara
Middlesex District Attorney Marian T. Ryan suggested better police training. City Manager Bernard F. Lynch promised closed-door hearings to consider disciplinary action. But, in Massachusetts, history suggests police officers guilty of misconduct are more likely to face a wrist slap than a judge or a pink slip.
Ryan, for one, declared Brame’s death “accidental” in a report that said police conduct did not “rise to the level of wanton and reckless conduct that would support or warrant criminal charges.” Even though Lt. Thomas Siopes, the officer in charge that night, misled investigators about her condition. Even though officers failed to check on Brame every 30 minutes as legally required. Even though Siopes has said he sees no reason, even now, to reconsider his decision not to call an ambulance.
“If your child came home drunk and collapsed in front of you and you went off to watch TV or play video games, which is what, in effect, these officers did, you would be indicted,” said Howard Friedman, a Boston civil rights attorney who often represents survivors in police misconduct cases, including this one.
Middlesex District Attorney Marian T. Ryan suggested better police training. City Manager Bernard F. Lynch promised closed-door hearings to consider disciplinary action. But, in Massachusetts, history suggests police officers guilty of misconduct are more likely to face a wrist slap than a judge or a pink slip.
Ryan, for one, declared Brame’s death “accidental” in a report that said police conduct did not “rise to the level of wanton and reckless conduct that would support or warrant criminal charges.” Even though Lt. Thomas Siopes, the officer in charge that night, misled investigators about her condition. Even though officers failed to check on Brame every 30 minutes as legally required. Even though Siopes has said he sees no reason, even now, to reconsider his decision not to call an ambulance.
“If your child came home drunk and collapsed in front of you and you went off to watch TV or play video games, which is what, in effect, these officers did, you would be indicted,” said Howard Friedman, a Boston civil rights attorney who often represents survivors in police misconduct cases, including this one.
Taft2016
Verified User
Assuming everything there is true, which is a huge assumption .... your problem would be with the prosecutor, wouldn't it?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
1. they are ALL part of the law enforcement system. trying to separate them as you are is you showing your badge blowing bias
2. i've also posted numerous examples of cops deciding whether to charge their fellow officers or not but would happily charge a civilian for the same offense. do not be obtuse about it and show your stupidity even worse.
Taft2016
Verified User
Lawmakers are elected public officials
Police are hired public employees
Prosecutors are elected public officials
Judges are elected public officials, and sometimes appointed public officials
To view this mixed bag of built-in checks as an homogenous entity out to gain entry into your double-wide to catch you smoking pot and having gay sex is simply irrational paranoia.
Stop exhibiting your flat-out ignorance. The police do not decide whether or not a person is charged and prosecuted. They bring the matter to the prosecutor, who determines if there is enough to go forward to a trial with. And a grand jury will decide is the prosecutor is right about a case warranting a trial. And a trial jury will decide guilt or innocence.
Your examples are anecdotal and evidence of nothing. I could provide all kinds of anecdotes about prosecutors not prosecuting cases worthy of trial, of activist judges suppressing perfectly legitimate evidence in trials, ad infinitum, of courts overturning perfectly legitimate verdicts, etc. But it's all just anecdotal, and there are anecdotal problems with every agency across the huge expanse of government.
But since the Dept. of Agriculture never gave you a traffic summons for passing through a stop sign, I guess you're not butthurt about them.
No, just certain cases for example simple marijuana possession. One of the key jobs of a prosecutor is to compromise. If you did not drop a certain percentage of your cases, you would get buried and the cases that mattered more would suffer. We had finite resources to enforce the law so prioritizing became one of the most important components of our job.
The guy with no record who was arrested for indecent exposure by an overzealous cop for pulling over and taking a piss on a disserted highway at 2AM, case automatically dismissed. Small marijuana possession cases, dismissed. DUI with an injured victim, prosecuted to the fullest extent.
He does not read my posts, he simply jumps at the chance to attack. I think I threaten him or something.
Taft2016
Verified User
I understand all of that. I do read your posts, including the court case you cited.
Perhaps you can enlighten STY; in your jurisdiction, did you happen to present all police firearms discharges that struck individuals to grand juries. They do in New York City.
Can you explain that the decision to/not to prosecute such incidents does not rest solely within the confines of the police department itself?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is a flat out lie, not that you'll acknowledge that. a criminal charge BEGINS with whether the cop decides to file or not.
Taft2016
Verified User
OK Sherlock.
Was George Zimmerman initially arrested by the police? No
Did the police initially file charges? No
Was he charged? Yes
Was he tried? Yes
Anything to add?
No, Taft here you are absolutely incorrect. One must not look at their differences but at their commonalities to assess the situation. The question is which trough do they feed from, and the answer is the same. The Judge, the prosecution, the court clerk, the legislator, the cop, even the public defender all feed at the same trough.
This is one of the major reasons that justice serves the rich better than the poor.
It could happen that way, or the police could decline to press charges or even investigate. Further, a bench trial is also possible, and often a clerk-magistrate will refuse to bring charges.
But most of those other agencies can't blow your head off or rape your wife and then get help covering it up.
Your attempt to muddy the waters with distractions about butthurt and your other homosexual proclivities are unsuccessful.