Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg to stop seeking prison in some cases

[JoeB131]

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.

Actually, it was dead set on. The White Working Class has gotten screwed over the last 40 years, largely by Republican Policies that put the interests of the working class below that of the investor class.

The Bitter Clingers like to think they have control when they don't.

You see, up until 2008, I was pretty conservative. (I still, really, really hated Mormons, though, and elevating Mitt Romney probably accelerated my departure.) Then I realized two essential truths.

1) I don't make enough money to vote Republican, and neither do you or most people on this board.
2) The GOP is very good at using Religion, Racism, and Sexual fears to get people to vote against their own economic interests.

The White Working Class in this country is just smart enough to realize that it got screwed, but not smart enough to realize who screwed them.

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.

Well, I have a degree in history. Of course, it's one of those pesky ones where they don't teach about Talking Snakes.

Of course, they weren't saints and they weren't great men. They were a bunch of guys who didn't want to pay their taxes for a war they helped institigate. Had they lost, we'd all be Canadians today.

 

[lantern2814]

Good luck to Eric Adams reducing crime in Manhattan.

Manhattan DA to stop seeking prison sentences in slew of criminal cases



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 already one cop refused to sign paperwork on an arrest because this DA left out pertinent information about the case. Adams may well have his hands full trying to bring law and order back to the City with people like this impeding him.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Of course, they weren't saints and they weren't great men. They were a bunch of guys who didn't want to pay their taxes for a war they helped institigate [sic]. Had they lost, we'd all be Canadians today.

Canaduh was founded in cowardice, in submission to tyranny. The United States was founded in defiance against the very same tyranny.

You should seriously consider emigrating to Canaduh, if they'll have you*. You'd probably be happier there, and this country would certainly be better off with one less of your kind.


* They probably won't. I don't think other countries want our trash.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

People like Giuliani and even Bloomberg TRIED to address the underlying causes. That’s what the “broken windows” policy you and idiots like you cried about was doing. It actually lowered crime. Then of course people like you cried “that’s Wacist!”. Despite the actual lowering of crime rates.

 

[TheParser]

Manhattan DA to stop seeking prison sentences in slew of criminal cases

I hope that Mr. B. will make an exception to his no-prison policy in the case of an Asian man who was repeatedly stomped on his head a few months ago and has just died.

The suspect is what "liberals" call a "victim of poverty and systemic racism."

 

[JoeB131]

Canaduh was founded in cowardice, in submission to tyranny. The United States was founded in defiance against the very same tyranny.

You should seriously consider emigrating to Canaduh, if they'll have you*. You'd probably be happier there, and this country would certainly be better off with one less of your kind.

Sorry, guy, I put a lot of work into this one... 11 years, exactly, according to my DD214.

The problem is, of course, that the United Kingdom in 1776 wasn't a "tyranny"... it was a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. It enjoyed then and today most of the freedoms we take for granted, and they don't need to lock up 2 million people to get there.

On the other hand, your deranged cult tried to carve out its own country in 1857. Of course, their rebellion consisted of murdering 100 innocent people in the Francher Party at Mountain Meadow (September 11, 1857) before the Army came in and kicked their backsides.

Oh, I just imagine this wonderful alternate history where we hanged Brigham Young for Treason and sent photos to Jefferson Davis.

 

[JoeB131]

People like Giuliani and even Bloomberg TRIED to address the underlying causes. That’s what the “broken windows” policy you and idiots like you cried about was doing. It actually lowered crime. Then of course people like you cried “that’s Wacist!”. Despite the actual lowering of crime rates.

Except he didn't treat the underlying causes... he treated the symptoms... and it's questionable if he really did, because Crime declined at the same rate in NYC as it did in the rest of the country between 93 and 01.

The underlying causes of crime are

1) Poverty
2) Racism
3) Mental Illness
4) Addiction
5) Proliferation of Guns.

None of those problems were solved by Guliani sending out cops to frisk random black people.

 

[22lcidw]

Sorry, guy, I put a lot of work into this one... 11 years, exactly, according to my DD214.

The problem is, of course, that the United Kingdom in 1776 wasn't a "tyranny"... it was a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. It enjoyed then and today most of the freedoms we take for granted, and they don't need to lock up 2 million people to get there.

On the other hand, your deranged cult tried to carve out its own country in 1857. Of course, their rebellion consisted of murdering 100 innocent people in the Francher Party at Mountain Meadow (September 11, 1857) before the Army came in and kicked their backsides.

Oh, I just imagine this wonderful alternate history where we hanged Brigham Young for Treason and sent photos to Jefferson Davis.

You never consider financial globalists who print money to affect nations. They wanted the Western Hemisphere. They saw the power growing in a region. of it. So the War between the States kept getting closer to reality using slavery as a crutch. If the South succeeded a Fiat Currency would have been installed. It would take about 50 years before the globalists finally set the United States of America to its potential demise.

 

[JoeB131]

You never consider financial globalists who print money to affect nations. They wanted the Western Hemisphere. They saw the power growing in a region. of it. So the War between the States kept getting closer to reality using slavery as a crutch. If the South succeeded a Fiat Currency would have been installed. It would take about 50 years before the globalists finally set the United States of America to its potential demise.

Again, does your doctor know you are off your medications?

 

[Abatis]

Not at all.

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

or

you think only select people should have guns.

Because it is so legally amorphous, I can not definitively and finally say that I agree with your premise, but neither can I say I disagree with it . . . Because it represents child-like understanding.

I would reply to your statement with:

I believe that no right is absolute in an ordered society.​

​

and​

​

I believe that truth does not mean government's power is absolute.​

If you think the latter, then we are in agreement, it's just on who we should "select" that's the issue.

Well, in the USA, who can possess and use a gun is framed precisely by the law that has developed under the Constitution . . .

All citizens are considered of the class that can exercise the right to keep and bear arms unless by specific circumstance (i.e., adjudicated or diagnosed insanity) or direct action of the citizen (i.e., criminal activity, renouncing citizenship, etc), and then, after the application of well established due process, the right is disabled.

So the actual process is one of the de-selection of a particular citizen from the general citizenry, as opposed to yours, where [government?] is declaring all unfit and choosing select, approved citizens who shall have the "right" afforded to them (granted if you will).

Of course that process has no relationship with the understanding of what a "right" is (an exception of powers never granted to government) and has had no existence in US law ever. This is another example of you detaching terms from their foundation and spouting philosophically incoherent gibberish.

I don't see a good reason for anyone who isn't a cop or a soldier to have a gun.

But your personal opinion has absolutely no bearing on what Constitution means and how it renders government impotent in enforcing your feeling that only police and soldiers can have guns.

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

It's funny because I've always believed precision in language is vital to having an "honest discussion". I say funny because many anti-gunners criticize gun rights supporters (and me in particular) for being pedantic and too focused on exact and definitive language when discussing law.

In 30 years of enjoying the on-line gun debate, my experience has been that it is anti-gunners who have this universal slippery quality of using imprecise and especially hyperbolic, but oh-so fucking boring language, (e.g., "Founding Slave Rapists") and never wanting to speak in definitive, established legal terms.

It is duplicitous anti-gunners who want to avoid an "honest discussion", and you are their drooling, propeller-beanie wearing poster boy . . .

.

 

[JoeB131]

I would reply to your statement with:

I believe that no right is absolute in an ordered society.andI believe that truth does not mean government's power is absolute.

That's nice. How about a bit of common sense? We have people gunning each other down over traffic disputes.

So the actual process is one of the de-selection of a particular citizen from the general citizenry, as opposed to yours, where [government?] is declaring all unfit and choosing select, approved citizens who shall have the "right" afforded to them (granted if you will).

Of course that process has no relationship with the understanding of what a "right" is (an exception of powers never granted to government) and has had no existence in US law ever. This is another example of you detaching terms from their foundation and spouting philosophically incoherent gibberish.

If you wanted to go by what the Founding Slave Rapists wanted, they didn't want you, the great unwashed to have guns. They thought "The People" only consisted of property-owning white males. They also thought shitting in a chamber pot was hygienic and that bleeding people was cutting edge medical technology.

The problem with your "de-selection" theory is that it is often too late. Joker Holmes should have been "de-selected" from owning a gun. The guy was fucking nuts. Everyone in his life knew he was nuts. yet he was still able to walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 and a 100 round clip, and mow down a bunch of people seeing The Dark Knight Rises. (As if they weren't being punished enough watching that sludge.)

But your personal opinion has absolutely no bearing on what Constitution means and how it renders government impotent in enforcing your feeling that only police and soldiers can have guns.

Quite the contrary, eventually people are going to get sick and tired of your fetish and the allowances the rest of us have to make for it.

It's funny because I've always believed precision in language is vital to having an "honest discussion". I say funny because many anti-gunners criticize gun rights supporters (and me in particular) for being pedantic and too focused on exact and definitive language when discussing law.

In 30 years of enjoying the on-line gun debate, my experience has been that it is anti-gunners who have this universal slippery quality of using imprecise and especially hyperbolic, but oh-so fucking boring language, (e.g., "Founding Slave Rapists") and never wanting to speak in definitive, established legal terms.

I really don't care about "legal" terms. We get two more justices who see things our way, the Second Amendment is about Militias again, which is what it was for most of our history.

The reality is that your whole Gun Fetishist argument is based on a lie that guns make us safer, even though this is the most dangerous country to live in amongst advanced nations.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Because just taking my shit is harming me, threatening my life for my shit is harming me.

And if the government doesn't want to handle it, people will start handling it themselves.

The police are there to protect criminals from the people just as much as to protect the people from criminals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because just taking my shit is harming me, threatening my life for my shit is harming me.

And if the government doesn't want to handle it, people will start handling it themselves.

The police are there to protect criminals from the people just as much as to protect the people from criminals.

And ultimately, this gets right down to Incel Joe's real motive for not wanting to allow you to have a gun.

It's a subhuman criminal piece of shit. It wants its kind to have the right to take your shit, and to threaten your life to take your shit. And it doesn't want you to have any ability to do anything to resist. And it doesn't want the police to be able to do their job, either. It's on the side of its own kind, and against the side of human beings.

 

[johnwk]

Because just taking my shit is harming me, threatening my life for my shit is harming me.

And if the government doesn't want to handle it, people will start handling it themselves.

The police are there to protect criminals from the people just as much as to protect the people from criminals.

Hey, don't freaken worry about it. If you live in Manhattan, where Bragg is the DA, simply move to one of the other four boroughs and you will be safe.

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.

 

[martybegan]

Hey, don't freaken worry about it. If you live in Manhattan, where Bragg is the DA, simply move to one of the other four boroughs and you will be safe.

View attachment 586197

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.

Except when you have to commute to Manhattan to work.

What he doesn't understand is he doesn't just work for the people living there, he also works for the millions of people who work there, who go there for entertainment, and those who come as tourists.

 

[JoeB131]

And ultimately, this gets right down to real motive for not wanting to allow you to have a gun.

It's a subhuman criminal piece of shit. It wants its kind to have the right to take your shit, and to threaten your life to take your shit. And it doesn't want you to have any ability to do anything to resist. And it doesn't want the police to be able to do their job, either. It's on the side of its own kind, and against the side of human beings.

Hey, CreepyCultBoy, the reason I don't want you to have a gun is you are 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Given that you have expressed a desire to murder women who have abortions, government officials, and people who commit petty crimes, I'm more frightened of you than some kid who just wants my wallet.

Because just taking my shit is harming me, threatening my life for my shit is harming me.

So no actual harm and stuff that can be replaced. Locking them up for a year seems fair.

And if the government doesn't want to handle it, people will start handling it themselves.

Again, 43 times more likely to kill a household member... You're a danger to yourself and others.

The police are there to protect criminals from the people just as much as to protect the people from criminals.

I agree... and the problem here is that you are a danger to each other, because a lot of you have guns that shouldn't.

 

[martybegan]

Hey, CreepyCultBoy, the reason I don't want you to have a gun is you are 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Given that you have expressed a desire to murder women who have abortions, government officials, and people who commit petty crimes, I'm more frightened of you than some kid who just wants my wallet.


So no actual harm and stuff that can be replaced. Locking them up for a year seems fair.


Again, 43 times more likely to kill a household member... You're a danger to yourself and others.





I agree... and the problem here is that you are a danger to each other, because a lot of you have guns that shouldn't.

Read the memo, not locking up at all. restitution and "don't do it again"

 

[JoeB131]

Read the memo, not locking up at all. restitution and "don't do it again"

Restitution sounds fair to me.

Here's the reality- most property crimes are resolved with restitution, not prison. Let's get real here.

 

[martybegan]

Restitution sounds fair to me.

Here's the reality- most property crimes are resolved with restitution, not prison. Let's get real here.

Sorry, but if you threaten my life for my property, I want your ass in jail.

Especially if more than likely the person has done the same thing before.

Most criminals are assholes, something progressive "fuck the victim hug the criminal" twats like you ignore.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, but if you threaten my life for my property, I want your ass in jail.

I'm sure you do. But we've been trying the "lock them up" approach and the only ones who have benefited is the Prison Industrial Complex.

Especially if more than likely the person has done the same thing before.

Most criminals are assholes, something progressive "fuck the victim hug the criminal" twats like you ignore.

Some criminals are assholes.
Some of them are just desperate because they are hungry or addicted, despite this being the richest country in the world.

Look, if we just want to appease your anger, we could do that, but what we are doing DOES NOT WORK.

Maybe, and here's a crazy idea, we look at other countries to see what they are doing right.