Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg to stop seeking prison in some cases

[JoeB131]

You misspelled “dead”.

You seem to want a lot of people "dead" for someone who claims to be "pro-life".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You seem to want a lot of people "dead" for someone who claims to be "pro-life".

Your people, of course, is you refuse to acknowledge the difference between people—human beings—and criminals.

Criminals are not people.

Criminals are not human beings.

Treating them like human beings only results in allowing them to continue to cause harm to actual human beings.

But since you're a criminal yourself, and not a human being, that is what you want to happen. You want the freedom, for yourself and for all of your depraved kind, to commit acts of theft, destruction, and violence against human beings. You know this, I know this, everyone else in this forum knows this.

 

[johnwk]

No, it benefits the rest of us who don't have to deal with the assholes on the street.

Plenty of attempts at treating these people have been done, the simple fact is many of them DON'T FUCKING CARE.

I was mugged twice in the bad old days of NYC, and the perps were never caught.

Now when they are caught they are going to be let go to do it over and over.

After committing a felony, like armed robbery, the Bragg policy is to charge it as "Petty Larceny", issue a DESK APPEARANCE TICKET, and the perp is back on the streets in a few hours to repeat Armed Robbery.

From the actual policy:

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.​

PL § 155.25 is Petit larceny and is a class A misdemeanor for which a Desk Appearance Ticket is issued, and the perp is out and about in a few hours.

JWK

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

 

[Bob Blaylock]

After committing a felony, like armed robbery, the Bragg policy is to charge it as "Petty Larceny", issue a DESK APPEARANCE TICKET, and the perp is back on the streets in a few hours to repeat Armed Robbery.

From the actual policy:

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.​

PL § 155.25 is Petit larceny and is a class A misdemeanor for which a Desk Appearance Ticket is issued, and the perp is out and about in a few hours.

JWK

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

Does anyone else see, as clearly as I do, the Orwellian twist in this?

…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.​

“Displaying a dangerous instrument” for the purpose of compelling anything from the one to whom that display is made, constitutes a prima facie threat, indicating “a genuine risk of physical harm.”

There is no rational basis on which to not see such a threat as indicating a genuine risk that that threat might be carried out.

 

[Abatis]

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

Sounds like if it's intended to make us safe, government's power is nearly without limits . . . So "common sense" mandates if traffic disputes occur, we must ban cars.

If you wanted to go by what the Founding Slave Rapists wanted, they didn't want you, the great unwashed to have guns.

We know that's not true because no power was ever conferred to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. The great unwashed didn't need the FSR's to give them the right, the dirty commoners fully retained the pre-existing right to arms.

They thought "The People" only consisted of property-owning white males.

It's interesting because in the Federalist, Hamilton made it pretty clear that under the Constitution, arms bearing was longer just the domain of the "yeomanry", he called out "the other classes of citizens" too. It was clear that none of the familiar restrictions found in English law (on landholding, title, religion) on citizen's arms keeping and bearing would be put in law.

So you're wrong again.

They also thought shitting in a chamber pot was hygienic and that bleeding people was cutting edge medical technology.

Well, in some neighborhoods in San Fransisco such things would be considered radical advancement.

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.

I would prefer that the people who know the person in crisis would take the steps to get them help which in turn, would, if the person is insane, begin the process to have them declared a prohibited person for gun purchases.

Your problem is, gun ownership and use is a fundamental right and can't be removed just because the UPS guy thinks somebody is a kook. The RKBA can only be legally removed for specific reasons (which I mentioned).

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.

Nah, that's not how any of this works (emphasis added) . . .

"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)​

I really don't care about "legal" terms.

No shit. Just look at this crap you wrote in the next quote:

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.

You want something that never was anything but a lie, and never can be brought into legal existence.

 

[JoeB131]

Your people, of course, is you refuse to acknowledge the difference between people—human beings—and criminals.

Criminals are not people.

Criminals are not human beings.

Treating them like human beings only results in allowing them to continue to cause harm to actual human beings.

One- I am going to report you every time you accuse me of criminal behavior. It's slanderous and against forum rules.

Second- denying the humanity of someone because they made a mistake doesn't make you a particularly decent human being, and certainly not a "Christian".

Third- See someone about your anger issues. You need help.

 

[JoeB131]

Sounds like if it's intended to make us safe, government's power is nearly without limits . . . So "common sense" mandates if traffic disputes occur, we must ban cars.

Or regulate them sensibly. Oh, wait, we already do that.

We know that's not true because no power was ever conferred to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. The great unwashed didn't need the FSR's to give them the right, the dirty commoners fully retained the pre-existing right to arms.

That's simply not true. The Firearms Act of 1934, upheld by US v. Miller would say otherwise.

It's interesting because in the Federalist, Hamilton

Not really interested in the opinion of the least racist Founding Slave Rapist. The fact is, Tommy Jefferson didn't want Sally Hemmings to have a gun, she'd have shot his balls off.

Your problem is, gun ownership and use is a fundamental right and can't be removed just because the UPS guy thinks somebody is a kook. The RKBA can only be legally removed for specific reasons (which I mentioned).

There are no rights... There are only the privileges society agrees to.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

One- I am going to report you every time you accuse me of criminal behavior. It's slanderous and against forum rules.

You make the accusation yourself, every time you openly take the side of criminals against that of humans beings.

Choose to side with criminals, then you have no basis on which to complain about being called a criminal yourself.

You are known by the company that you choose to keep.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Second- denying the humanity of someone because they made a mistake doesn't make you a particularly decent human being, and certainly not a "Christian".

I'm not the least bit concerned about what a Godless subhuman criminal piece of shit thinks about whether I am a Christian or not. There is no reason whatsoever why anyone should give any weight to your opinion on the matter.

 

[johnwk]

Does anyone else see, as clearly as I do, the Orwellian twist in this?

…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.​

“Displaying a dangerous instrument” for the purpose of compelling anything from the one to whom that display is made, constitutes a prima facie threat, indicating “a genuine risk of physical harm.”

There is no rational basis on which to not see such a threat as indicating a genuine risk that that threat might be carried out.

The good news is, the nitwits who voted Bragg will soon learn the error of voting for a Soros backed District Attorney,

JWK

They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Socialist Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist.

 

[JoeB131]

You make the accusation yourself, every time you openly take the side of criminals against that of humans beings.

Choose to side with criminals, then you have no basis on which to complain about being called a criminal yourself.

You are known by the company that you choose to keep.

Works on the assumption you can't have compassion for both crime victims and criminals.

I'm not the least bit concerned about what a Godless subhuman criminal piece of shit thinks about whether I am a Christian or not. There is no reason whatsoever why anyone should give any weight to your opinion on the matter.

12 years of Catholic School, I missed the part where Jesus called for murdering people. Of course, Catholics are real Christians, unlike Mormons, who are just a weird cult.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Works on the assumption you can't have compassion for both crime victims and criminals.

You must really love crime victims, to so staunchly support polices that have no other intent or effect than to create more and more of them.

 

[martybegan]

Ah, yes, Hell Hath No Fury Like a white person slightly inconvenienced.

Over the years, I've had my car and house broken into. Don't know who did it, but at the end of the day, I got over that.

What we need are intervention programs, not to keep throwing people into prison.

Because you are a gutless lemming?

Intervention programs have been tried, for some they work, for most they are a joke.

Criminals are criminals mostly because they are assholes.

 

[martybegan]

I agree but in MA we have a giant student and healthcare populations and they lean far left.

Agreed. But the conditions that led to Republicans wins at the State and City level in NY may be repeated soon.

 

[martybegan]

Except we don't do that. We don't treat prisoners for mental illness or addiction. We just lock them up... In many ways, they come out worse than when they went in...

There are all sorts of programs for that in prison, the issue is plenty of criminals don't care about them.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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.

The top prosecutor went on to instruct staff to cease charging petty, low-level crimes—subway fare evasion, marijuana misdemeanors, prostitution and resisting arrest, among them—and to seek bail and jail time only in cases involving violence, sex abuse, and major financial offenses.

Can you please post where he said do not charge for mugging.

 

[martybegan]

The top prosecutor went on to instruct staff to cease charging petty, low-level crimes—subway fare evasion, marijuana misdemeanors, prostitution and resisting arrest, among them—and to seek bail and jail time only in cases involving violence, sex abuse, and major financial offenses.

Can you please post where he said do not charge for mugging.

So someone gets to use the subway for free while I keep paying? WTF is that shit?

So cops can now be resisted with impunity?

Manhattan’s ‘progressive’ new DA Alvin Bragg just gave a green light for anarchy

Specifically, Bragg says his office “will not seek a carceral sentence” for anything short of murder or deadly assault (“carceral” being progressive double-speak for prison). Also, he says minor crime won’t be prosecuted at all.

So that means someone can mug me, or attempt to, and as long as they don't hurt me, they don't go to jail. So I can have a knife to my throat, and as long as they don't cut me, they get a fine and a "don't do that again, WE MEAN IT"

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Agreed. But the conditions that led to Republicans wins at the State and City level in NY may be repeated soon.

I hope you are right and people are waking up

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So someone gets to use the subway for free while I keep paying? WTF is that shit?

So cops can now be resisted with impunity?

Manhattan’s ‘progressive’ new DA Alvin Bragg just gave a green light for anarchy



So that means someone can mug me, or attempt to, and as long as they don't hurt me, they don't go to jail. So I can have a knife to my throat, and as long as they don't cut me, they get a fine and a "don't do that again, WE MEAN IT"

I posted the list Marty, I can't see anything in there that says you can mug someone. Would you be so kind as to point that out for us.

 

[martybegan]

I posted the list Marty, I can't see anything in there that says you can mug someone. Would you be so kind as to point that out for us.

It's there clear as crystal. The person might be charged, but they aren't going to jail unless they try or actually succeed in injuring me.

It's all in his memo to his staff. Why is it that every utterance of a Republican is treated as literal, but when a Progressive issues something we are somehow "reading it wrong"?

Why have a law against fare beating if you aren't going to enforce it? Why pay for the subway if you face no penalty for not doing so?