- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 2,693
- Reaction score
- 1,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Although I'm not 100% knowledgeable on all the details of how qualified immunity works, obviously it can be abused. I certainly think there are instances where it's necessary. But there are also specific instances where it should be challenged and denied. Police officers obviously shouldn't automatically get away with shooting a suspect. There should always be a fair and impartial investigation anytime a cop shoots someone, otherwise it could be abused.America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing.
NOTE: Criminal justice reform = CJR
First of all, I completely disagree with the main CJR agenda items being pushed by BLM, Progressives, and some dems such as de-funding police depts, releasing arrested suspects with little or no bail(often including violent offenders), racially motivated sentencing guidelines, slap on the wrist penalties for violent felons, decriminalizing actual crime, etc.
But there are reforms that they point to that are sorely needed. IMO, they include:
legalizing(or at least fully decriminalize)marijuana nationwide
vastly decrease the penalties for drug users possessing small, personal use quantities of drugs
END mandatory minimum("trafficking") prison sentences of 3-5+ years for possessing a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine(5-7+ grams). It's mind-blowingly idiotic to dole out a 3-5 year prison sentence to someone who picks up 5.1 to 7.1 grams of coke for a party, while many armed robbers, rapists, and child molesters get shorter sentences!
Impose mandatory detox & rehab instead of prison for drug addicts
Impose harsh penalties for law enforcement officers who blatantly abuse their power, needlessly assault suspects, and ensure they aren't able to just get rehired as a cop 1 town over!
Make it mandatory for officers to wear bodycams while making arrests, which protects everyone from malfeasance, including the suspects and the officers themselves.
Make it impossible or illegal for cops to intentionally switch off their bodycams OR audio while questioning or arresting someone.
If an officer intentionally switches off the bodycam while questioning or arresting someone, the charges he brought against a suspect must be reduced or dropped altogether, and an investigation begun. Because turning off your audio and video just before you engage in arrest or questioning, is a pretty damn good sign of malfeasance!
Yeah, I just read about that lady being arrested in the airport and jailed for weeks, because she had the same name as an actual criminal they were looking for. All they had to do was LOOK AT HER PHOTO ID and compare it with the actual suspect's ID, because they looked nothing alike! But for some reason, they didn't bother doing that!The cops in Los Angeles are being sued by a woman who was thrown into jail for three weeks even though she was the wrong woman.
She had the same name as a bad woman.
That was enough for the cops.
They apparently did not want to use their time (for which they are well paid in Los Angeles, not to mention their generous pensions) to see whether they had picked up the right woman. It would have been easy peasy to discover whether they had the right woman.
Yes, robbers and sucker punchers and looters and rapists and murderers are bad human beings, but so are some cops.
Yes, it would nice if there were stricter controls over the cops. (And a disgraced cop should be banned from all police work in every jurisdiction).
Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.NOTE: Criminal justice reform = CJR
First of all, I completely disagree with the main CJR agenda items being pushed by BLM, Progressives, and some dems such as de-funding police depts, releasing arrested suspects with little or no bail(often including violent offenders), racially motivated sentencing guidelines, slap on the wrist penalties for violent felons, decriminalizing actual crime, etc.
All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.legalizing(or at least fully decriminalize)marijuana nationwide
vastly decrease the penalties for drug users possessing small, personal use quantities of drugs
END mandatory minimum("trafficking") prison sentences of 3-5+ years for possessing a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine(5-7+ grams). It's mind-blowingly idiotic to dole out a 3-5 year prison sentence to someone who picks up 5.1 to 7.1 grams of coke for a party, while many armed robbers, rapists, and child molesters get shorter sentences!
Impose mandatory detox & rehab instead of prison for drug addicts
Impose harsh penalties for law enforcement officers who blatantly abuse their power, needlessly assault suspects, and ensure they aren't able to just get rehired as a cop 1 town over!
Make it mandatory for officers to wear bodycams while making arrests, which protects everyone from malfeasance, including the suspects and the officers themselves.
Make it impossible or illegal for cops to intentionally switch off their bodycams OR audio while questioning or arresting someone.
If an officer intentionally switches off the bodycam while questioning or arresting someone, the charges he brought against a suspect must be reduced or dropped altogether, and an investigation begun. Because turning off your audio and video just before you engage in arrest or questioning, is a pretty damn good sign of malfeasance!
I dont know about all that Dans, I think this is a misconception on your part.
Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.
All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.
I'd argue for legalization (but not commercialization) of most if not all drugs. Addicts of heroin etc. should be able to buy and use their drugs - with appropriate information and supervision - at public clinics, partly or wholly funded by the cost of purchase. Odds are that could be done cheaply enough to drive the cartels out of business, potentially wiping out a vast swathe of organized crime from supply/violence/corruption overseas to smuggling to turf wars to dealers to their victims suffering dodgy products, risking overdose and endangering others. It seems rather perverse that something should be considered a 'crime' when the primary and sometimes only real victim is the user and that, in labeling it such, a market incentive is actively created for vast networks of organized, genuine crime and dealers actively preying on the weak-willed and desperate.
I agree, but it must be dealt with in a safe, responsible, and mostly non-corrupt way! I recently read about how California govt and politicians are destroying their own legal marijuana industry, by rigging the system with excessive regulations, licensing requirements and fees, that ensure that only the wealthy, well connected businesses and entrepreneurs are able to produce or sell marijuana in the legal marijuana industry there(and in other legalized states)!Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.
All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.
I'd argue for legalization (but not commercialization) of most if not all drugs. Addicts of heroin etc. should be able to buy and use their drugs - with appropriate information and supervision - at public clinics, partly or wholly funded by the cost of purchase. Odds are that could be done cheaply enough to drive the cartels out of business, potentially wiping out a vast swathe of organized crime from supply/violence/corruption overseas to smuggling to turf wars to dealers to their victims suffering dodgy products, risking overdose and endangering others. It seems rather perverse that something should be considered a 'crime' when the primary and sometimes only real victim is the user and that, in labeling it such, a market incentive is actively created for vast networks of organized, genuine crime and dealers actively preying on the weak-willed and desperate.
I agree, but it must be dealt with in a safe, responsible, and mostly non-corrupt way! I recently read about how California politicians are destroying their own legal marijuana business with all sorts of ridiculous, unfair regulations and licensing requirements and fees, that ensure that only the wealthy, well connected businesses and entrepreneurs are able to produce or sell marijuana in the legal marijuana industry there(and in other legalized states)!Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.
All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.
I'd argue for legalization (but not commercialization) of most if not all drugs. Addicts of heroin etc. should be able to buy and use their drugs - with appropriate information and supervision - at public clinics, partly or wholly funded by the cost of purchase. Odds are that could be done cheaply enough to drive the cartels out of business, potentially wiping out a vast swathe of organized crime from supply/violence/corruption overseas to smuggling to turf wars to dealers to their victims suffering dodgy products, risking overdose and endangering others. It seems rather perverse that something should be considered a 'crime' when the primary and sometimes only real victim is the user and that, in labeling it such, a market incentive is actively created for vast networks of organized, genuine crime and dealers actively preying on the weak-willed and desperate.
Errr...no. We already are witnessing what less policing results in, and that's more people killed, more crimes, and more of about everything that is terrible.America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing.
All very reasonable points. If even half those things were accomplished, I'd consider it the biggest step forward on this issue in my lifetime.NOTE: Criminal justice reform = CJR
First of all, I completely disagree with the main CJR agenda items being pushed by BLM, Progressives, and some dems such as de-funding police depts, releasing arrested suspects with little or no bail(often including violent offenders), racially motivated sentencing guidelines, slap on the wrist penalties for violent felons, decriminalizing actual crime, etc.
But there are reforms that they point to that are sorely needed. IMO, they include:
legalizing(or at least fully decriminalize)marijuana nationwide
vastly decrease the penalties for drug users possessing small, personal use quantities of drugs
END mandatory minimum("trafficking") prison sentences of 3-5+ years for possessing a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine(5-7+ grams). It's mind-blowingly idiotic to dole out a 3-5 year prison sentence to someone who picks up 5.1 to 7.1 grams of coke for a party, while many armed robbers, rapists, and child molesters get shorter sentences!
Impose mandatory detox & rehab instead of prison for drug addicts
Impose harsh penalties for law enforcement officers who blatantly abuse their power, needlessly assault suspects, and ensure they aren't able to just get rehired as a cop 1 town over!
Make it mandatory for officers to wear bodycams while making arrests, which protects everyone from malfeasance, including the suspects and the officers themselves.
Make it impossible or illegal for cops to intentionally switch off their bodycams OR audio while questioning or arresting someone.
If an officer intentionally switches off the bodycam while questioning or arresting someone, the charges he brought against a suspect must be reduced or dropped altogether, and an investigation begun. Because turning off your audio and video just before you engage in arrest or questioning, is a pretty damn good sign of malfeasance!
How do you go from a solid rational post to this one as the first response.America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing.
You'd think it would be obvious and self evident that removing police from high crime areas will lead to more crime. As recently as 10-15 years ago it would've been obvious for the vast majority of people. But now, the left, the democrats and the media have gone full bore on the identity and intersectional politics. That means they now promote the B.S. notion that the vast majority of "POC's" have been falsely accused and imprisoned, and that they didn't actually commit the violent crimes they were arrested and convicted of.Errr...no. We already are witnessing what less policing results in, and that's more people killed, more crimes, and more of about everything that is terrible.
If you quote the post, then click into the quote section and press enter, it should split the quote in two so you can isolate paragraphs. I do miss the old open/closeFirst, I STILL don't know how to carve out individual paragraphs of someone else's post, then copy/paste them into my own post and respond to them individually. So I'll just say that my response here is to your 1st paragraph:
I understand the purpose of bail, but as it is currently it creates a very real and ugly class-divide in the criminal justice system. The poor can't afford even small bail, so they rot in jail awaiting trial. Then they lost what little support they did have (jobs, etc). If it was ACTUALLY reserved for violent offenders, that wouldn't be a problem. But that does not seem to be the case.We shouldn't bail out ANY potentially violent criminal suspects, regardless of their ability to afford bail, especially when proof of their guilt is obvious. That's supposed to be the whole purpose of detaining suspects before trial, to protect the local population from them.
Of course we should allow non-violent suspects to await their due process without being imprisoned(punished) for something they may not be guilty of. The purpose of bail, is to 'help' ensure that they don't just skip their trial, by providing a financial penalty/motivation for suspects NOT to skip.
I don't have a problem with the principles you're describing, but I do doubt the assertion that prosecutors are actually doing that at any significant scale. Have you considered the possibility that your media is vastly exaggerating the problem due to partisan bias or just plain sensationalist greed? Whenever I've looked into examples before, it seems to go like this:But what progressive prosecutors are doing, is arguing either for low bail or NO bail for suspects, often including dangerous, violent, repeat offenders, and even felons caught with illegal guns! Obviously, putting violent felons back on the street immediately while awaiting trial, is putting innocent citizens at risk! So let's be consistent.... NO potentially dangerous, violent felons should be bailed out when charged with more violent crimes, regardless of their wealth or lack thereof!
How do you go from a solid rational post to this one as the first response.
Irrational from the jump and never got any better.
Errr...no. We already are witnessing what less policing results in, and that's more people killed, more crimes, and more of about everything that is terrible.
"America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing. "There is nothing irrational in my post.
"America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing. "
Every single bit of that is irrational, hyperbolic, divisive, and not well thought out.
Irrationally wrong. You are painting with an awfully big brush. Which is why this is also hyperbolic.Are America's police out of control? Demonstrably YES.
Same issue.Is the policing system full of racists? Demonstrably YES.
Possibly, but would require more input than your "thoughts"Is the police BUDGTET out of control? Demonstrably YES.
Not exactly, again with the hyperbole.Is qualified immunity preventing actual police reform? Demonstrably YES.
Challenge accepted.Go ahead and challenge me on any of these points. I dare you.
Irrationally wrong. You are painting with an awfully big brush. Which is why this is also hyperbolic.
Same issue.
Possibly, but would require more input than your "thoughts"
Not exactly, again with the hyperbole.
Challenge accepted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?