Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg to stop seeking prison in some cases

[Abatis]

So......anti-gun extremists...explain this guy to us....

Bragg’s memo also detailed the following instructions for prosecutors to reduce charges filed by cops in various cases:

• Armed robbers who use guns or other deadly weapons to stick up stores and other businesses will be prosecuted only for petty larceny, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there’s no “genuine risk of physical harm” to anyone.

This particular change really needs to be defended / explained by our resident gun control advocates.

This means that an armed robber, who now only gets charged with petty larceny, would only be subject to imprisonment up to 364 days in jail.

This means that armed robber, upon conviction, will not become a 18 USC §922(g)(1) prohibited person and will retain the right to buy and possess guns and ammo.

Is that protecting the public?

Is that "keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them"?

For reference, 18 USC §922(g)(1) says that:

"It shall be unlawful for any person — who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; to . . . possess . . . or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This particular change really needs to be defended / explained by our resident gun control advocates.

This means that an armed robber, who now only gets charged with petty larceny, would only be subject to imprisonment up to 364 days in jail.

This means that armed robber, upon conviction, will not become a 18 USC §922(g)(1) prohibited person and will retain the right to buy and possess guns and ammo.

Is that protecting the public?

Is that "keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them"?

For reference, 18 USC §922(g)(1) says that:

"It shall be unlawful for any person — who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; to . . . possess . . . or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."​

What would be the point?

Any explanation that they gave would be lies. You would know that it is lies; I would know that it is lies; they would know that it is lies.

They know damn well that they do not want to protect the public, and that they are lying when they claim that they do, or that that is the intent of any policy that they promote.

They are on the side of their own kind—subhuman criminal pieces of shit—and against the side of human beings. They will tell whatever lies they think might hide this truth, but their policies make it clear.

 

[martybegan]

Then the people shouldn't vote for a radical prosecutor. They are getting what they deserve.

At least in Queens we dodged a bullet during the primary.

I am going to have seriously reconsider any trips into Manhattan, especially at night.

 

[22lcidw]

The Village!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Village!

 

[shoshi]

shoshi
Can you fight ???
Are you ex Idf

Don’t go to NYC

I am very sorry to tell you this but don’t go to most places in America
The country is fully FUBAR and getting worse

I do Krav Maga and BJJ Sambo fusion. Never been in street fight.

 

[johnwk]

This means that an armed robber, who now only gets charged with petty larceny, would only be subject to imprisonment up to 364 days in jail.

Bragg is in fact obstructing getting criminals off the streets and away from law abiding citizens!


The Bragg policy of charging armed robbery (a felony) as Petit Larceny (a misdemeanor) is defeating New York's penial code. As stated in the memo, the felony act of Robbery in the first degree (PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), is to be charged “under PL § 155.25 [Petit Larceny] if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.”

Here is the full quote from the memo:

"a) An act that could be charged under PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05 that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL § 155.25 if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm."


So, instead of following NY's penial code, designed to protect hard working citizens and their families from armed robbery thugs, Alvin Bragg will now charge an armed robber with petit larceny under which the perp will be issued a Desk Appearance Ticket and be back on the streets in a few hours to commit the same offense against the hard-working citizens of NYC and their families.

Is this what the Citizens of NYC wanted when they voted for Alvin Bragg?

JWK

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Crime. Arson. Riots. Anarcho-terrorism.

NYC is the latests to install a pro-crime Democrat.

"New Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg won't pursue fare beating, resisting arrest, other misdemeanors without accompanying felony charges. ... In prostitution cases, sex traffickers and pimps can still be charged, Bragg said.21 hours ago

New Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg won't pursue fare beating ...​

https://sports.yahoo.com › manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-won..

Alvin Bragg, a former federal prosecutor sworn to office Jan. 1 as Manhattan’s first Black DA, told his staff not to bother with many cases of fare beating, resisting arrest and other nonviolent crimes — a move toward fulfilling his campaign promise of criminal justice reform.


View attachment 583824
One of the truly 'great' Liberal ideas is to pay homage to felons, and allow criminals to loot store.....but only up to about $1,000
https://sports.yahoo.com/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-won-184400847.html#:~:text=NY Daily News-,New Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg won't pursue fare beating,misdemeanors without accompanying felony charges&text=In prostitution cases, sex traffickers,still be charged, Bragg said.
https://sports.yahoo.com/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-won-184400847.html#:~:text=NY Daily News-,New



2. Riots, arson, anarchism, assaults, lawlessness rewarded, neither lives nor property safe.....under Democrat governance.
One wonders why citizens pay taxes, and what they expect from government, when the above is the norm from Democrats officials.



3. Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown has a particularly "odd" view of policing.
She isn't inclined to do it.

At 14:30 “I will not put an officer in harms way to protect the property….”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r77hLsAoMv8&ab_channel=CBS17


4. Chesa Boudin, the new DA elected by San Francisco:

“SAN FRANCISCO'S NEW DA WILL NOT PROSECUTE PROSTITUTION, PUBLIC URINATION CASES: 'WE MUST THINK DIFFERENTLY'
Responding to the ACLU questionnaire published in the San Francisco Chronicle before the election, Boudin said: "We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes. Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted."
San Francisco's new DA will not prosecute prostitution, public urination cases: "We must think differently"


This is what Democrats believe is the sort of city you should live in.

"Should All Thefts Be Prosecuted? Dallas County’s District Attorney Says No
An initiative by John Creuzot is stopping prosecutions for theft of personal items worth less than $750."
Should All Thefts Be Prosecuted? Dallas County’s District Attorney Says No | Houston Public Media






We no longer need psychiatriats......


Just ask any individual which party they voted for and we have proof of insanity.

 

[johnwk]

At least in Queens we dodged a bullet during the primary.

I am going to have seriously reconsider any trips into Manhattan, especially at night.

Did you see the following on “The Five”?

 

[johnwk]

Something is very dangerous and concerning to ordinary working folks when Al Sharpton is the center of attraction:​

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their most formidable domestic enemy.

 

[Quasar44]

shoshi
Very cool

 

[Abatis]

Bragg is in fact obstructing getting criminals off the streets and away from law abiding citizens!

I know, my question was entirely rhetorical.

Is this what the Citizens of NYC wanted when they voted for Alvin Bragg?

The citizens of Manhattan voted for this with an >80% majority. Manhattan is only one of five boroughs and given the strong commerce there, when commercial interests are repeated easy fodder for the jackals, perhaps business pressure in the political realm will be brought to bear.

There is zero chance Governor Hochel or AG James will be riding to the citizen's rescue and forcing the enforcement of state law.

This will be an interesting test bed for the near complete surrender to criminals in an urban setting.

 

[JoeB131]

I work in Manhattan, so that means some guy can mug me on the subway and unless he is really really violent, he would get a most a fine and maybe probation.

And so? If he didn't harm you, and he makes restitution, what's the problem, then?

Here's the real problem. We don't have enough prison space to keep locking people up for petty offenses. It's why we have 2 million people in prison and other 7 million on probation and parole.

It's not like we are going to start addressing the underlying causes of crime or anything. Come on, that's crazy talk.

 

[JoeB131]

I once heard that prisons are supposed to be at least a little inconvenient.

I also once heard that (for the most part) felons ought to be sentenced to prison.

But now I see! If felons get sentenced to prisons and prison is a little inconvenient, then what kind of monsters are WE?

It’s so obvious, now! The felons aren’t the bad guys. WE are!

Or maybe we are getting what we deserve.

We lock up 2 million people. More than any country in the world, even Communist China. We have another 7 million on probation or parole. We have 100 million Americans with a police record. We have cops armed like soldiers, who kill over 1000 people a year, because they are never sure who might be reaching for a gun. 17% of the population lives below the poverty line. The mentally ill are allowed to roam the streets because we lack treatment programs.

Meanwhile in the rest of the G-7 (Europe, Japan and Canada) they lock up less than 100K people. They don't let every lunatic who wants a gun have one. They treat addiction as a medical issue and not a criminal one. They have extensive programs for poverty relief and mental health.

Someone is doing this wrong.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

These Dopywoky Democrat Politicians are admitting that their constituents are the bottom of society who cause most of our crime problems

 

[JoeB131]

This particular change really needs to be defended / explained by our resident gun control advocates.

This means that an armed robber, who now only gets charged with petty larceny, would only be subject to imprisonment up to 364 days in jail.

This means that armed robber, upon conviction, will not become a 18 USC §922(g)(1) prohibited person and will retain the right to buy and possess guns and ammo.

Is that protecting the public?

Is that "keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them"?

For reference, 18 USC §922(g)(1) says that:

"It shall be unlawful for any person — who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; to . . . possess . . . or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

According to you guys, gun ownership is a God Given Right bestowed by the Founding Slave Rapists.

Of course, since 83% of homicide victims are killed by people they know, that's actually the bigger problem.

 

[Abatis]

According to you guys, gun ownership is a God Given Right bestowed by the Founding Slave Rapists.

Exactly how do you oppose what you obviously don't understand?

The only interest you demonstrate with that statement is propping up your own biases, biases formed and maintained without any ability to compose a coherent description of the belief you oppose. You aren't making a rebutal of what I beleive, you are arguing against a characterization of what you would like me to believe, so your biases seem rational . . . By that statement, nothing you believe is rational, it is all emotionalism.

Christ, you're making a philosophical statement but you can't honestly state what the belief is; "a God Given Right bestowed by the Founding Slave Rapists" is philosophical and logical gibberish. In trying to make a gun rights (and Constitution) supporter look racist, you make yourself look like an idiot.

Of course, since 83% of homicide victims are killed by people they know, that's actually the bigger problem.

And here you prove you do not understanding the term "acquaintance" as the FBI uses it, describing the relationship between the offender and the victim.

Just because you have stomped real terms and meanings into a mishmash mud puddle, doesn't mean I have to splash around in your ignorance.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly how do you oppose what you obviously don't understand?

The only interest you demonstrate with that statement is propping up your own biases, biases formed and maintained without any ability to compose a coherent description of the belief you oppose. You aren't making a rebutal of what I beleive, you are arguing against a characterization of what you would like me to believe, so your biases seem rational . . . By that statement, nothing you believe is rational, it is all emotionalism.

Christ, you're making a philosophical statement but you can't honestly state what the belief is; "a God Given Right bestowed by the Founding Slave Rapists" is philosophical and logical gibberish. In trying to make a gun rights (and Constitution) supporter look racist, you make yourself look like an idiot.

Not at all.

you either think everyone has a right to own a gun.

or

you think only select people should have guns.

If you think the latter, then we are in agreement, it's just on who we should "select" that's the issue. I don't see a good reason for anyone who isn't a cop or a soldier to have a gun. They are more dangerous to the people who own them than the bad guys, and they provide the bad guys with an unending supply. 380,000 guns are stolen from legal owners EVERY YEAR.

The Founding Slave Rapists never meant for the average person to own a small arsenal. That would have been crazy. They expected people of means to own guns and be part of an organized militia. In fact, the NRA was founded because a union general was horrified by how little average Northerners knew about guns.

And here you prove you do not understanding the term "acquaintance" as the FBI uses it, describing the relationship between the offender and the victim.

Just because you have stomped real terms and meanings into a mishmash mud puddle, doesn't mean I have to splash around in your ignorance.

Well, no an honest discussion about guns are the last thing your side wants.

You've sold a dangerous product to unsuspecting people as safety, when you yourselves have created the problem. So people Cling to the guns and their bibles, not realizing they people who give them the guns have their own agenda.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So people Cling to the guns and their bibles…

That was probably the stupidest thing that Obama ever said, and that is saying something considering how low he set the bar.

It's even more stupid, when you say it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Founding Slave Rapists never meant for the average person to own a small arsenal.

It's funny, with the abject contempt and hatred that you constantly express for the great men who founded this nation, and who wrote our Constitution; with your rejection of the authority of the principles and rules by which they established this; in the same sentence, you presume to speak for them, to declare that they did not mean what they made it as clear as they possibly could that they did mean.

All that you have proven is that there is no reason why anyone should give any credence to anything that you have to say on the subjects of the Constitution, or of the principles upon which it was written or on which this nation was founded.