Man Who Let Darrell Brooks Out Said That Individuals Like Brooks Would Get Out And Kill People...Guaranteed

[mudwhistle]

Again, this is true WITH ALL POLICY. Just a fact.

So what you're saying is shit happens.....and no amount of common-sense should be considered.

Gotcha.

 

[Esdraelon]

So the fact he knows it will happen doesn't invalidate the idea?

what a fucking moron.

He's one of those "greater good" types. He also knows the likelihood that he or someone he cares for will almost never be harmed by his decisions.

 

[FA_Q2]

So what you're saying is shit happens.....and no amount of common-sense should be considered.

Gotcha.

Okay Cathy Newman.

I knew better than to bother. You have as much nuance as a brick.

 

[mudwhistle]

Okay Cathy Newman.

I knew better than to bother. You have as much nuance as a brick.

Well....I've been told by more than one professor that my writing is very clear and concise.
You feel like dancing around the issue while I like getting to the point.

Every case is different. This case was pretty clear-cut.
I really don't understand why you have issues with that.

 

[mudwhistle]

This fucker needs to be indicted for criminally negligent homicide.

If they started doing that Obama judges would be quitting the bench all over the country.

 

[Theowl32]

Conversely, is it a good idea to lock up the innocent to prove a point, or to show the flaws in the court system?

Additionally, releasing someone does not CAUSE the murder of innocents. It may allow it, or provide opportunity, but it does not cause it. That is no comfort to victims or their loved ones, but it is a consideration when discussing policy.

Holy shit

 

[mudwhistle]

Conversely, is it a good idea to lock up the innocent to prove a point, or to show the flaws in the court system?

Additionally, releasing someone does not CAUSE the murder of innocents. It may allow it, or provide opportunity, but it does not cause it. That is no comfort to victims or their loved ones, but it is a consideration when discussing policy.

Oh....so you must approve of them arresting people for Jan 6th and keeping them in jail without charges or trespassing for the last 10 months.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh....so you must approve of them arresting people for Jan 6th and keeping them in jail without charges or trespassing for the last 10 months.

I’m curious what odd logic chain got you there.

 

[mudwhistle]

I’m curious what odd logic chain got you there.

You started talking about locking up the innocent....so I provided a perfect example of it.
I wasn't talking about locking up the innocent.
I was talking about locking up repeat-offenders.

 

[Montrovant]

You started talking about locking up the innocent....so I provided a perfect example of it.
I wasn't talking about locking up the innocent.
I was talking about locking up repeat-offenders.

What you did was ask if it is a good idea to let people be killed (by letting people out of jail), and I pointed out the other side of that idea. You then jumped to my opinion on charges and detainment of people for January 6. It’s a bit of a non-sequitur.

 

[mudwhistle]

What you did was ask if it is a good idea to let people be killed (by letting people out of jail), and I pointed out the other side of that idea. You then jumped to my opinion on charges and detainment of people for January 6. It’s a bit of a non-sequitur.

Well....the problem with you is you're isolating one sentence without remembering or bothering to consider the context.....so I can see where you'd be so confused.
Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[daveman]

Conversely, is it a good idea to lock up the innocent to prove a point, or to show the flaws in the court system?

Additionally, releasing someone does not CAUSE the murder of innocents. It may allow it, or provide opportunity, but it does not cause it. That is no comfort to victims or their loved ones, but it is a consideration when discussing policy.

Semantics. If Chisolm had treated the piece of shit like a criminal instead of a litterbug, the parade wouldn't have been attacked.

 

[daveman]

Silly argument.
If you release a repeat-offender because of lax laws or a snafu in the system, basically the offender usually will, and predictably will, repeat the same offense, if not a worse offense.

And the DA said the people he was going to release on ridiulously low bails would hurt innocents.

Remember, folks -- Democrats value the lives of criminals over yours.

 

[Montrovant]

Semantics. If Chisolm had treated the piece of shit like a criminal instead of a litterbug, the parade wouldn't have been attacked.

Obviously true, but the responsibility is first with the asshole driving the vehicle.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obviously true, but the responsibility is first with the asshole driving the vehicle.

Yeah....you said that.

 

[daveman]

Obviously true, but the responsibility is first with the asshole driving the vehicle.

Indeed. But if the asshole who let him out of jail DIDN'T let him out of jail, the piece of shit wouldn't have been able to murder anyone.

Since the asshole knew people whom he let out of jail too easily would commit murder, the asshole should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

 

[sealybobo]

So he knows that these kinds of criminals will eventually end up killing someone......why in the heck does he stick with his stupid beliefs?

Well....it's a sickness......he's a progressive....it's how they think:

View attachment 568238

Releasing Dangerous People Into the Community​

One of the nation’s first proudly progressive reformers elected as a major city’s lead prosecutor, Chisholm almost immediately implemented an “evidence-based approach” that relied heavily on deferred prosecution and early intervention programs aimed at keeping criminals out of jail. No longer would the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office request high bails for criminal suspects or even prosecute their crimes. Instead, they would pursue alternatives that Chisholm fully admitted would result in dangerous felons being released into the community.


“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody?” You bet,” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

Waukesha Killing Suspect The Latest Criminal Freed By Soft-On-Crime DA

Inappropriately and dangerously low bail has been a hallmark of the Milwaukee District Attorney’s Office since Democrat John Chisholm was elected.

thefederalist.com

I'm so sick of you cons blaming us liberals for letting violent criminals out early. I was watching Very Scary People. Ever see that show? They talk about Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, BTK and other serial killers.

The one guy they called The Butcher Baker. The Alaska Supreme Court let this guy out. Are you suggesting the Alaska Supreme Court is liberal?

A 1972 Alaska conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon resulted in a five year sentence with a recommendation that Hansen receive psychiatric treatment. After serving six months, Hansen was transferred to a halfway house and placed on a work release program. One year later, Hansen was released on parole; parole was terminated after approximately three years.

After an assault charge was filed against Hansen, a court-ordered psychiatric report was submitted dated February 28, 1972. Dr. Langdon stated that Hansen suffered from a dissociative mental illness and suggested that Hansen's criminal activity stemmed from that illness. Dr. Langdon indicated that Hansen's type of disorder was difficult to treat successfully, but a subsequent letter from Dr. Allen H. Parker, filed eight months later, indicated that Hansen had made sufficient improvement through therapy to warrant his release on parole.

The Alaska Supreme Court released Robert Hansen in September 1978, with time-served on his larceny in a building conviction. One year in jail, instead of five. For Hansen, it almost seemed like a permission slip. True, he showed some restraint. It wasn’t until October 1979 that he was caught again.

Alaska Supreme Court is not liberal.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm so sick of you cons blaming us liberals for letting violent criminals out early. I was watching Very Scary People. Ever see that show? They talk about Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, BTK and other serial killers.

The one guy they called The Butcher Baker. The Alaska Supreme Court let this guy out. Are you suggesting the Alaska Supreme Court is liberal?

A 1972 Alaska conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon resulted in a five year sentence with a recommendation that Hansen receive psychiatric treatment. After serving six months, Hansen was transferred to a halfway house and placed on a work release program. One year later, Hansen was released on parole; parole was terminated after approximately three years.

After an assault charge was filed against Hansen, a court-ordered psychiatric report was submitted dated February 28, 1972. Dr. Langdon stated that Hansen suffered from a dissociative mental illness and suggested that Hansen's criminal activity stemmed from that illness. Dr. Langdon indicated that Hansen's type of disorder was difficult to treat successfully, but a subsequent letter from Dr. Allen H. Parker, filed eight months later, indicated that Hansen had made sufficient improvement through therapy to warrant his release on parole.

The Alaska Supreme Court released Robert Hansen in September 1978, with time-served on his larceny in a building conviction. One year in jail, instead of five. For Hansen, it almost seemed like a permission slip. True, he showed some restraint. It wasn’t until October 1979 that he was caught again.

Alaska Supreme Court is not liberal.

And a singular case is not the issue.

Policy that specifically tries to go soft on crime and ends up generating more crimes and more victims, like this policy, is. And those are the policies of the left right now. Defund the cops. Let mass number of people out of prison. Neuter bail. DIRECTLY STATE you will no longer be apprehending petty theft.

ALL policies on the left. All ending up in more innocent people being killed. All ending up the utter distruction of minority communities.

 

[sealybobo]

And a singular case is not the issue.

Policy that specifically tries to go soft on crime and ends up generating more crimes and more victims, like this policy, is. And those are the policies of the left right now. Defund the cops. Let mass number of people out of prison. Neuter bail. DIRECTLY STATE you will no longer be apprehending petty theft.

ALL policies on the left. All ending up in more innocent people being killed. All ending up the utter distruction of minority communities.

Some of those ideas have merit. If it's not a violent crime, why so much prison time? Why not try to rehabilitate? Defund the cops? What does that even mean? You mean reform them? They do work for us. Neuter bail? Yea, because rich people can post bail. Poor people can't. Isn't that unfair? And yea, don't arrest petty theft. Just issue a ticket.

Today we are seeing a white woman cop on trial because she murdered a black kid over a minor traffic incident. Perhaps she should have just taken a picture of the license and sent a ticket to the home. That kid would still be alive.

We can do better than this.

And what will your policies produce? Keep everyone in prison forever so they won't do it again?

This is just you guys making this political. I'd like to keep violent offenders in forever too. Rapists and murderers. Life. But that depends. If Kyle was convicted, would you say he should spend the rest of his life in prison or get out in 10-20 years? What about all the cops who have been convicted of murder? Life for all of them? Hell, you wish they were found innocent, so I doubt you would say you want them in for life because they were convicted. So then you must admit circumstances matter. And sometimes they get it wrong. Yes Kyle or George might actually murder again one day.

 

[FA_Q2]

Some of those ideas have merit. If it's not a violent crime, why so much prison time? Why not try to rehabilitate? Defund the cops? What does that even mean? You mean reform them? They do work for us. Neuter bail? Yea, because rich people can post bail. Poor people can't. Isn't that unfair? And yea, don't arrest petty theft. Just issue a ticket.

No, for the most part they have zero merit.

Rehabilitation is not about time, it is about reforming the prison system altogether. Right now, prison has nothing to do with reform and is actually specifically designed not to reform. If you really are serious about rehabilitation, you do not run to sentencing guidelines, you go straight to the piss poor system we have for reintegrating offenders and having more options in prison to gain a marketable skill.

Bail reform sounds good. It is bullshit though as has been shown the instant such policies were put into place. There are many things wrong with the legal system, bail is not even in the top 10.

What does defund the cops mean? Now you are just being dishonest. I don't care what particular lie you want to drag out of the closet to defend the asinine mantra picked up by the left, every interpretation of this idea is beyond asinine.

Today we are seeing a white woman cop on trial because she murdered a black kid over a minor traffic incident. Perhaps she should have just taken a picture of the license and sent a ticket to the home. That kid would still be alive.

Utterly irrelevant. Anecdotal stories are meaningless and should never be the drivers of policy nor does anything I have mentioned have squat to do with traffic policy.

We can do better than this.

And what will your policies produce? Keep everyone in prison forever so they won't do it again?

No but then again I have never advocated for 'putting people in prison forever' so it is anyone's guess as to why you feel the need to lie about my position to defend your own.

This is just you guys making this political.

Bullshit.

I'd like to keep violent offenders in forever too. Rapists and murderers. Life. But that depends. If Kyle was convicted, would you say he should spend the rest of his life in prison or get out in 10-20 years?

If convicted of murder, probably. What do you think a murderer should get, 6 months? What does that have to do with anything stated thus far? Nothing at all. Since he was innocent of any charges he got nothing. Perhaps if the child rapist was in prison he would not have been killed.

What about all the cops who have been convicted of murder? Life for all of them? Hell, you wish they were found innocent, so I doubt you would say you want them in for life because they were convicted. So then you must admit circumstances matter. And sometimes they get it wrong. Yes Kyle or George might actually murder again one day.

Yes, cops who murder people while they are on duty should be in prison for a damn long time. One of the largest problems we have with the police force is that they are not held to account.

And of course circumstances matter. Nowhere have I argued anything different. You seem to be setting up straw man after straw man after straw man.