Democrat DA Orders No More Arrests for Breaking-Entering, Shoplifting, Property Destruction, Etc.

[candycorn]

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards..

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• 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
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Of course you left off the rest of the story:

"Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors."

View attachment 254297

Why is it that whenever you post something, it is intentionally misleading?

What the DA is saying is essentially this:

More crimes that in the past bought you jail time will be handled like a speeding ticket or other minor violation. There is still a penalty for committing these acts; the difference is that it no longer involves a trip to County.

B&E should be treated as attempted murder
Unquestionably every time it is s committed.
Why? Because the asshole doing it is also endangering his own life.

Jo

Again, the OP was misleading about that.

The actual passage reads as follows:

• 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

You are reading it to mean where someone breaks into a vacant property to sleep or get out of the cold. You aren't seeing the OR. This changes the meaning permitting the breaking and entering of occupied property if the purpose is sleeping or getting out of cold. This must be part of calling home invaders uninvited guests.

They will get shot and should get shot.

That is what the link says…it’s copied above in red. Can’t you read you daft bitch?

 

[gtopa1]

Woh there, Missie? Like how will that work? Plead guilty and get a wrist fondle??

Greg

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

Ma'am: here you can get jail time for not wearing your bicycle helmet. The Law is indeed often an ass, but just don't do stuff that hurts other people. Break and enter is not a crime?? Keep your doors unlocked for a week; enjoy the consequences.

Greg

 

[candycorn]

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

Ma'am: here you can get jail time for not wearing your bicycle helmet. The Law is indeed often an ass, but just don't do stuff that hurts other people. Break and enter is not a crime?? Keep your doors unlocked for a week; enjoy the consequences.

Greg

Again, you’re believing the misleading headline instead of the truth. Just as the OP designed.

 

[WillMunny]

The reason is quite simple: Democrats are so filled with hatred of fellow Americans (especially white ones) that they want them to be the victims of crime. Especially black crime, since that's by far the most ubiquitous form of crime in this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Woh there, Missie? Like how will that work? Plead guilty and get a wrist fondle??

Greg

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them. It beats what it would cost me to get a paint job on my car because some punk decided to spray paint the thing because he'd only get a slap on the hand by authorities. Or perhaps buying new lawn equipment because somebody stole my mower and weed whacker out of my garage.

 

[candycorn]

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them.

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• 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
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Of course you left off the rest of the story:

"Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors."

View attachment 254297

Why is it that whenever you post something, it is intentionally misleading?

What the DA is saying is essentially this:

More crimes that in the past bought you jail time will be handled like a speeding ticket or other minor violation. There is still a penalty for committing these acts; the difference is that it no longer involves a trip to County.

B&E should be treated as attempted murder
Unquestionably every time it is s committed.
Why? Because the asshole doing it is also endangering his own life.

Jo

Again, the OP was misleading about that.

The actual passage reads as follows:

• 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

You are reading it to mean where someone breaks into a vacant property to sleep or get out of the cold. You aren't seeing the OR. This changes the meaning permitting the breaking and entering of occupied property if the purpose is sleeping or getting out of cold. This must be part of calling home invaders uninvited guests.

They will get shot and should get shot.

That is what the link says…it’s copied above in red. Can’t you read you daft bitch?

You posted it and can't understand what you posted.
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 the property. As long as the property is not damaged anyone could break into an occupied property and claim the right to sleep or to get out of the cold.

It is not my fault you can't read you ignorant bastard. Get your boyfriend's balls out of your eyes.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them. It beats what it would cost me to get a paint job on my car because some punk decided to spray paint the thing because he'd only get a slap on the hand by authorities. Or perhaps buying new lawn equipment because somebody stole my mower and weed whacker out of my garage.

Which would you rather have 30 days in jail with 3 hots and a cot or 20 lashes with a cat-o-nine tails? I'd rather watch the lashing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them. It beats what it would cost me to get a paint job on my car because some punk decided to spray paint the thing because he'd only get a slap on the hand by authorities. Or perhaps buying new lawn equipment because somebody stole my mower and weed whacker out of my garage.

Which would you rather have 30 days in jail with 3 hots and a cot or 20 lashes with a cat-o-nine tails? I'd rather watch the lashing.

I don't know if I'd go that far, especially with kids. But the stronger the deterrent, the less the crime. What if rape only carried a community service penalty or armed robbery a fine? We would be having many more rapes and armed robberies in this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them.

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

Our country was founded on law and order. Having law and order is not big government in any sense of the words.

 

[candycorn]

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them. It beats what it would cost me to get a paint job on my car because some punk decided to spray paint the thing because he'd only get a slap on the hand by authorities. Or perhaps buying new lawn equipment because somebody stole my mower and weed whacker out of my garage.

Which would you rather have 30 days in jail with 3 hots and a cot or 20 lashes with a cat-o-nine tails? I'd rather watch the lashing.

Sounds like she wants to date you Ray

 

[candycorn]

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them.

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

Our country was founded on law and order. Having law and order is not big government in any sense of the words.

More people in jail for non-violent crimes. More taxes. More court costs. More ruined lives.

It's incredibly stupid. What is the return on investment on that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them. It beats what it would cost me to get a paint job on my car because some punk decided to spray paint the thing because he'd only get a slap on the hand by authorities. Or perhaps buying new lawn equipment because somebody stole my mower and weed whacker out of my garage.

Which would you rather have 30 days in jail with 3 hots and a cot or 20 lashes with a cat-o-nine tails? I'd rather watch the lashing.

Sounds like she wants to date you Ray

Everybody does. What can I say?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them.

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

Our country was founded on law and order. Having law and order is not big government in any sense of the words.

More people in jail for non-violent crimes. More taxes. More court costs. More ruined lives.

It's incredibly stupid. What is the return on investment on that?

A deterrent. That's what it takes to stop criminal acts. No deterrent means no stop to criminal acts.

 

[candycorn]

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them.

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

Our country was founded on law and order. Having law and order is not big government in any sense of the words.

More people in jail for non-violent crimes. More taxes. More court costs. More ruined lives.

It's incredibly stupid. What is the return on investment on that?

A deterrent. That's what it takes to stop criminal acts. No deterrent means no stop to criminal acts.

Clearly that has worked so far. We have almost no crime.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We have no deterrent. Cane a few jay walkers and there will be no jaywalking.

We cannot cane or lash young children. It's not their fault. Their parents aren't raising them correctly. Instead of angry parents fighting over accusing Jamal just take mama, strip her to the waist and give her 40 lashes. Make Jamal watch.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them.

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

Our country was founded on law and order. Having law and order is not big government in any sense of the words.

More people in jail for non-violent crimes. More taxes. More court costs. More ruined lives.

It's incredibly stupid. What is the return on investment on that?

A deterrent. That's what it takes to stop criminal acts. No deterrent means no stop to criminal acts.

Clearly that has worked so far. We have almost no crime.

Crime can never be totally solved, but it can be brought to a minimum. If you tell people there is no real price to pay for crime, expect it to expand--not shrink.

"You better not break into that house and rob it, because if you get caught, you will have to give all that stuff back!"

Sorry. I see nothing in that which would stop a person from committing that crime, but I do see how that would inspire others to do the same crime.

 

[candycorn]

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

Our country was founded on law and order. Having law and order is not big government in any sense of the words.

More people in jail for non-violent crimes. More taxes. More court costs. More ruined lives.

It's incredibly stupid. What is the return on investment on that?

A deterrent. That's what it takes to stop criminal acts. No deterrent means no stop to criminal acts.

Clearly that has worked so far. We have almost no crime.

Crime can never be totally solved, but it can be brought to a minimum. If you tell people there is no real price to pay for crime, expect it to expand--not shrink.

"You better not break into that house and rob it, because if you get caught, you will have to give all that stuff back!"

Sorry. I see nothing in that which would stop a person from committing that crime, but I do see how that would inspire others to do the same crime.

Its incredible how little you seem to understand the topic....

Lets have an experiment....

Do you speed excessively? Play loud music in your house? Peel out at stoplights? Shoot off fireworks? Fire your prized gun into the air? Why not? Because you get a citation for it. Enough citations (in the case of traffic violations), you lose your license. Right

Now...see if you can wrap your brain around the concept of the following?

Do you smoke joints in public? Why not? Because (now) you'll get a citation for it. Enough citations, you lose your freedom.

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

 

[candycorn]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

I'm curious. What do you think happens to most people who are arrested for criminal trespassing, possession of marijuana, terroristic threats, etc...?

Are you under the impression that these folks pay a bond or sit in jail for months waiting for a trial?