- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Boston DA lists crimes she won’t prosecute
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:24 am to jbgleason
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:24 am to jbgleason
quote:
She has basically legalized drug dealing.
Well that's not true.
Honestly, all the constitutional scholars and fiscal conservatives should be patting her on the back. "Disorderly conduct" and "disturbing the peace" are offenses that should be void for vagueness in a lot of jurisdictions. Receiving stolen property gets a lot of innocent people into trouble. Prosecuting homeless people for B&E places undue strain on the court system. Standalone "resisting arrest" charges are avenues through which cops retaliate against people they don't like if there is no other charge to tack on.
The only things I see as problematic here are the shoplifting/unqualified trespassing issues. I don't like not protecting others' property.
Other than that, what's the argument as to why officers/courts should waste time and money prosecuting?
1
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:26 am to jbgleason
Does she release them and tell them to do random acts of kindness? That has worked so well in BR.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:27 am to AbitaFan08
quote:
Thank god there’s all the STEM degrees from MIT and the MBAs from the HBS to help balance that out.
The most educated locally voted for SB91 which is virtually what this DA is doing
And it's terrible.
I have no problem decriminalizing drugs but the property crime is out of control
You'll soon find out
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:28 am to The Boat
The line between
1) being way more selective about which crimes you are going to prosecute and
2) announcing that you will no longer prosecute certain crimes
is the size of the Gand Canyon.
Besides, “choosing not to prosecute” is the wrong language to use if the DA is going to seek civil penalties and Pretrial Diversion as alternative sanctions.
To give the impression to the uninformed masses that there will be no sanctions for these crimes, even Resisting Arrest, is a TERRIBLE idea!
1) being way more selective about which crimes you are going to prosecute and
2) announcing that you will no longer prosecute certain crimes
is the size of the Gand Canyon.
Besides, “choosing not to prosecute” is the wrong language to use if the DA is going to seek civil penalties and Pretrial Diversion as alternative sanctions.
To give the impression to the uninformed masses that there will be no sanctions for these crimes, even Resisting Arrest, is a TERRIBLE idea!
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 11:29 am
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:30 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
To give the impression to the uninformed masses that there will be no sanctions for these crimes, even Resisting Arrest, is a TERRIBLE idea!
That's a fair point.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:34 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
I’m going to go sit on your lawn every night for midnight to 8am with a bullhorn and a boom box Reeeeeeeeiing nonstop at 110 decibels.
What are you gonna do about it?
I can still defend my property...
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 12/11/18 at 1:06 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
And is it really her place to decide? If we don’t want these to be crimes why can’t we just vote to decriminalize them.
That's the democratic thought process in a nutshell.
She was elected/appointed to enforce the laws that are on the books. nothing more, nothing less.
She was not, however, elected/appointed to enforce the laws that she personally agrees with, while ignoring the laws she doesn't personally agree with. BUT, she's a democrat, so she thinks rules and laws don't apply to her.
She should be tried for treason the second she refuses to prosecute anything that is lawfully illegal.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 1:09 pm to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Whatever happened to cutting off hands with a machete for stealing, and death by guillotine for trespassing
aka The Good Old Days
Posted on 12/11/18 at 1:17 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Other than that, what's the argument as to why officers/courts should waste time and money prosecuting?
Because its the fricking law and that's their fricking job.
Don't like the laws, vote to have them changed. What you don't get to do is ignore the ones you personally don't agree with. You also don't get to pick and choose which parts of your job you do without consequence. At least in the real world. Evidently all of that is okie dokie in the fantasy land that democrats live in.
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 12/11/18 at 1:23 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
I can still defend my property...
If you think you can shoot him for doing exactly what he said, then you might be a bigger retard than most on here.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 1:56 pm to SeeeeK
quote:I didn't say that id shoot him for that. Also the police will still arrest you
If you think you can shoot him for doing exactly what he said, then you might be a bigger retard than most on here.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 5:31 pm to shawnlsu
quote:
Because its the fricking law and that's their fricking job.
Don't like the laws, vote to have them changed. What you don't get to do is ignore the ones you personally don't agree with. You also don't get to pick and choose which parts of your job you do without consequence. At least in the real world
There is so much stupid in this response I really don't even know where to start...
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:15 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
In the same city that went to war the last time the government told them that strangers could sleep in their house.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:19 pm to rowbear1922
quote:
Soooo I can get $240 worth of food, alcohol, clothes, etc every day and never get charged?
Doubtful.
Notice that most of these are pretty minor (such as minor in possession) but if you are enough of a pain in the arse as a repeat offender the supervisor can give permission to prosecute anyway.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:19 pm to jbgleason
Aright! Just booked my flight there to do all my Christmas shoplifting. This is going to be great!
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:20 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Lock em up is a terrible method on all accounts for anything other than violent criminals.
So I steal from you and show up in court saying I’m broke, sorry can’t pay any fine. What you gonna do now?
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:22 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
The line between
1) being way more selective about which crimes you are going to prosecute and
2) announcing that you will no longer prosecute certain crimes
is the size of the Gand Canyon.
It is. But she did not announce 2 as an option. She announced the default is to not prosecute, but a supervisor can give permission to prosecute anyway.
For example, if you happen to get caught shoplifting a bunch of candy bars one time only, it really isn't worth prosecuting. They'll note you were arrested but that's it.
If you are caught shoplifting every day of the month, you'll get prosecuted anyway.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:24 pm to jbgleason
shocker what she looks like
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:26 pm to foshizzle
quote:
If you are caught shoplifting every day of the month, you'll get prosecuted anyway.
Probably never serve a day. Just get booked, go steal somewhere else
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:27 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Also the police will still arrest you
They'll probably get booked and released.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News