PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on February 11, 2016, 07:40:05 PM
-
Tonight's debate is making me ill. Bernie said that a black child born today has a 1 in 4 chance of ending up in prison, and is outraged by this.
Yet if the same black child lived a crime-free life, he would have a 0 in 100 chance of ending up in prison.
Why are the democrats so far up the ass of the race baiters about blacks in prison?
-
Sadly 3 out of 4 black children born of wedlock...no one seems to care about the break down of the family. No white guy is responsible for that...then again it will never be discussed at a dem debate...
-
Sadly 3 out of 4 black children born of wedlock...no one seems to care about the break down of the family. No white guy is responsible for that...then again it will never be discussed at a dem debate...
The only time I hear this is from the more conservative commentators. Well LBJ championed the War on Poverty, and Great Society in order to make minorities dependent, and controlled. He was a white guy, and a total SOB.
-
I didn't see the debate but when I turned on the TV and flipped to Fox, Brett Baier was interviewing Debber Wasserman Schultz and asked her when Fox News would get a chance to host a debate. Of course she dodged a question but said that she would continue to appear on the network and engage with him. His response was great: "So you're saying there's a chance?" She clearly didn't understand it. :D
-
It is not necessarily true that there is racism in the criminal justice system.
Psychology today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-bejeezus-out-me/201303/no-discrimination-in-the-criminal-justice-system)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470)
-
The Democrat platform is that the minorities have been unfairly arrested, and incarcerated, and that's why they are there, not because they commit more crime. >:(
-
The Democrat platform is that the minorities have been unfairly arrested, and incarcerated, and that's why they are there, not because they commit more crime. >:(
Everyone in prison is innocent. Just ask them.
-
Stan, your initial premise does not consider that there are so many laws on the books that NO-ONE can really live their lives 100% lawfully. I recall a video of a police officer citing a study that was done that showed that the any driver cannot operate their vehicle lawfully on just a short trip.
What the stats show is that there is a more stringent standard of law enforcement for blacks, not that blacks are committing more crime per capita.
-
Stan, your initial premise does not consider that there are so many laws on the books that NO-ONE can really live their lives 100% lawfully. I recall a video of a police officer citing a study that was done that showed that the any driver cannot operate their vehicle lawfully on just a short trip.
What the stats show is that there is a more stringent standard of law enforcement for blacks, not that blacks are committing more crime per capita.
Sorry, JB, but that's bullshit excuse making. There is a major difference between driving your car 5 mph over the limit, and committing a FELONY worthy of jail or prison.
I have lived my whole life without even thinking about not committing a felony. It's not in my DNA. For some people, it's a sport.
Consider Milwaukee. We are having an epidemic of grand theft auto. Thousands of vehicles are stolen each year, and it recently increased by 57%. The criminals know that the police will NOT conduct a chase, and the prosecutors are treating the theft of a $40,000 vehicle like the theft of a candy bar, probably out of fear of being accused of being racist by locking up ghetto thugs. It's become the epitome of a revolving door justice system.
Recently a 15 year old kid tried to steal a car, and was beaten up by people from the neighborhood. I will bet that kid learned more about crime and punishment in that one ass-kicking than he learned from all the other times he was arrested for something and then released.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/milwaukee-auto-theft-epidemic-out-of-control-sparking-street-justice/
-
I have lived my whole life without even thinking about not committing a felony. It's not in my DNA. For some people, it's a sport.
You don't have to think about committing a felony. Take the Lacey Act for instance. If you possess a product, and any component of that product has been made illegal anywhere in the world, you are committing a felony. It doesn't matter if that component is completely legal in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. If Lesotho has outlawed it, then you are committing a felony.
It is actually almost impossible for you to live in the United States without committing multiple felonies.
-
You don't have to think about committing a felony. Take the Lacey Act for instance. If you possess a product, and any component of that product has been made illegal anywhere in the world, you are committing a felony. It doesn't matter if that component is completely legal in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. If Lesotho has outlawed it, then you are committing a felony.
It is actually almost impossible for you to live in the United States without committing multiple felonies.
Lesotho? : confused:
I'm aware of the Gibson Guitar case, and I hear you about these ubiquitous laws and regulations of an out of control government. I don't disagree, but I'd like to stay on point with what #FeeltheUrn and Hillary were implying last night.
They were bemoaning the magnitude of the black prison population, even going as far as saying someone would get thrown in prison for smoking a joint. That just doesn't happen, which is too bad. It would help their case if they just told the truth.
-
Lesotho? : confused:
I'm aware of the Gibson Guitar case, and I hear you about these ubiquitous laws and regulations of an out of control government. I don't disagree, but I'd like to stay on point with what #FeeltheUrn and Hillary were implying last night.
They were bemoaning the magnitude of the black prison population, even going as far as saying someone would get thrown in prison for smoking a joint. That just doesn't happen, which is too bad. It would help their case if they just told the truth.
I am on point.
The issue is the number of laws that are in place give near-total discretion to the prosecutors to decide whom to incarcerate. If an AUSA got pissed at you, he could put you in jail on a felony charge.
That said, since the Democrats are such great lovers of the regulatory state, they're FAR more likely to make it worse, not better.
-
You don't have to think about committing a felony. Take the Lacey Act for instance. If you possess a product, and any component of that product has been made illegal anywhere in the world, you are committing a felony. It doesn't matter if that component is completely legal in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. If Lesotho has outlawed it, then you are committing a felony.
It is actually almost impossible for you to live in the United States without committing multiple felonies.
I Googled the Lacey Act and only found a wildlife protection law, though admittedly I didn't Google very hard. Despite that, did we sign onto a U.N. treaty that says we agree to this? We are not bound by other country's laws. So something illegal in Lesotho has no bearing here in the U.S. I'm not sure if that's the route you were going so I may have misunderstood you.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/0a/a7/e9/0aa7e95bb2f500c3dbeee0e6b7c8c2b9.jpg)
-
I Googled the Lacey Act and only found a wildlife protection law, though admittedly I didn't Google very hard. Despite that, did we sign onto a U.N. treaty that says we agree to this? We are not bound by other country's laws. So something illegal in Lesotho has no bearing here in the U.S. I'm not sure if that's the route you were going so I may have misunderstood you.
Here ya go:
(a) Offenses other than marking offenses
It is unlawful for any person—
(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce—
(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/3372
-
Here ya go:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/3372
That seems to pertain to fish or wildlife. I didn't read the whole law, only what you just posted. Anyway, I think we got a little off topic. Thanks for posting that.
-
That seems to pertain to fish or wildlife. I didn't read the whole law, only what you just posted. Anyway, I think we got a little off topic. Thanks for posting that.
Also covers plants. So if a piece of wood somewhere in the bowels of whatever device you have was taken from 10 yards over a line in a park, your buying that, even without knowledge, is a felony. Congratulations. Do you audit the origin of every component of every product you purchase?
-
Also covers plants. So if a piece of wood somewhere in the bowels of whatever device you have was taken from 10 yards over a line in a park, your buying that, even without knowledge, is a felony. Congratulations. Do you audit the origin of every component of every product you purchase?
While that may be how the law is written, I don't think that's the actual intent. It would seem the intent is to preserve the fish and wildlife population and it likely targets those who are doing it in mass, not a guy who has a piece of wood. Anyway, I get your point that it's very easy to commit a felony without realizing it or having any intent to do so.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/0a/a7/e9/0aa7e95bb2f500c3dbeee0e6b7c8c2b9.jpg)
Cognitive dissonance on parade.
BTW, is that chick the Fifth Element?
-
While that may be how the law is written, I don't think that's the actual intent. It would seem the intent is to preserve the fish and wildlife population and it likely targets those who are doing it in mass, not a guy who has a piece of wood. Anyway, I get your point that it's very easy to commit a felony without realizing it or having any intent to do so.
The point is, regardless of intent, you can commit a federal felony without any knowledge on your part. All you need to do is piss of an AUSA and boom, you can be prosecuted entirely upon a whim.
The famous saying is "Ignorance of the law is not a defense at the bar of justice." is a saying that needs to change. With the number of laws on the books expanding nearly exponentially, that standard upon the citizens is unattainable.
-
While that may be how the law is written, I don't think that's the actual intent.
Not relevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
We all live under "legal" tyranny.
-
The point is, regardless of intent, you can commit a federal felony without any knowledge on your part. All you need to do is piss of an AUSA and boom, you can be prosecuted entirely upon a whim.
The famous saying is "Ignorance of the law is not a defense at the bar of justice." is a saying that needs to change. With the number of laws on the books expanding nearly exponentially, that standard upon the citizens is unattainable.
Given how few of the firearm laws are used to prosecute actual career criminals.... I'll take my chances that no one will arrest me for being in possession of a piano with *GASP!* ivory keys (or having a whole bunch of extra ivory heads and tails for piano keys)
-
The point is, regardless of intent, you can commit a federal felony without any knowledge on your part. All you need to do is piss of an AUSA and boom, you can be prosecuted entirely upon a whim.
The famous saying is "Ignorance of the law is not a defense at the bar of justice." is a saying that needs to change. With the number of laws on the books expanding nearly exponentially, that standard upon the citizens is unattainable.
Agreed completely.
-
Not relevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
We all live under "legal" tyranny.
I understand this. However I still don't think you're going to get jammed up for a random piece of wood that you purchased. If you knew it was illegal and you purchased it from a known dealer or something, then sure. But buying a piece of wood from a craft show or an otherwise legitimate store isn't likely to get you arrested. While true that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, there is a "reasonable person" threshold that has to be met most of the time.
-
I understand this. However I still don't think you're going to get jammed up for a random piece of wood that you purchased. If you knew it was illegal and you purchased it from a known dealer or something, then sure. But buying a piece of wood from a craft show or an otherwise legitimate store isn't likely to get you arrested. While true that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, there is a "reasonable person" threshold that has to be met most of the time.
Right, try dealing with a "zealous" prosecutor or "crusading" EPA agent.
-
Right, try dealing with a "zealous" prosecutor or "crusading" EPA agent.
Sounds like you had a bad experience. The average person doesn't have to worry about this. I also refuse to live my life in fear of a zealous prosecutor.
-
Sounds like you had a bad experience. The average person doesn't have to worry about this. I also refuse to live my life in fear of a zealous prosecutor.
Nope, fortunately not (yet), but if they want you, there is no limit on the things they can get you on.
There was an article in Forbes or Fortune a few years ago about how the Feds pile on all kinds of ancillary charges (like "looking cross-eyed at a FEDERAL OFFICER" type of things) to make "targets" fold under crushing potential prison time.
-
Sadly 3 out of 4 black children born of wedlock...no one seems to care about the break down of the family. No white guy is responsible for that...then again it will never be discussed at a dem debate...
Actually, I do blame some white guys for this. I blame the liberals that made it easier for women and children with no father present to get "government aid" (free food, housing and other benefits).
But you are right that this is (as Trump would say) a UUUUGE problem.
-
Consider Milwaukee. We are having an epidemic of grand theft auto. Thousands of vehicles are stolen each year, and it recently increased by 57%. The criminals know that the police will NOT conduct a chase, and the prosecutors are treating the theft of a $40,000 vehicle like the theft of a candy bar, probably out of fear of being accused of being racist by locking up ghetto thugs. It's become the epitome of a revolving door justice system.
I lived and worked in Oakland, CA for 20 years and many "non violent" crimes, like auto theft were basically "legal crimes" there. Oh, they were officially on the list of no-nos and you could get arrested and taken to jail if caught doing it, but you would not be prosecuted, the charges would be dropped and you would be released. Not on a case by case basis, but as policy. The only exceptions to this were, if the perpetrator used a firearm in course of the theft, or if this were your third strike under our three strikes law. So if you had no priors and didn't use a gun, you were good to go and steal all the cars you want. Same thing with burglary.
The reason for this is the state and county resources are overwhelmed with the shear volume of crimes being committed. The jails are over crowded and there is pressure on the state to reduce the prison crowding by human rights groups both inside and outside the country. The solutions are, build more jail$$$, let people already in jail go, or just don't jail people in the first place. The last two options are the ones that the state is adopting.
In addition, the DA only has enough money to take the most violent and dangerous criminals to trail. A criminal trial is very slow and expensive. Everybody seems to take the fair trial part of the constitution seriously, but the speedy trial part, not so much. California would have to build more courthouses, hire more judges, more lawyers, more courtroom staff, or just don't prosecute so many cases. They are choosing the later.
I learned all this not from word on the street, or some investigative news report, but from a Lt. in the Oakland Police department that came to talk to our neighborhood watch group. He told us how it is and the truth of the matter. In Oakland they will make zero attempt to find out who broke into your house, or stole your car. They will make zero attempt to recover your stolen things, however if you have serial numbers on file in a police report and they happen to come across your stuff, they will let you know. Oh and that police report? The cops will not be filling it out and filing it, you will. When the cops answer your call, they will direct you to their website where you can download an official police report, fill it out yourself and submit it to them and your insurance company.
Having lived in and amongst this crime and been the victim of it, I perhaps can see the problem more clearly than some. Much to the dismay of the "tough on crime" crowd, I can tell you the solution to this problem is not build more jails and more courthouses. It's also not to just keep letting criminals go free. The real solution is to reduce the amount of criminals. I could go into more details on how to do that, but it feels like a whole other thread to me.
-
I lived and worked in Oakland, CA for 20 years and many "non violent" crimes, like auto theft were basically "legal crimes" there. Oh, they were officially on the list of no-nos and you could get arrested and taken to jail if caught doing it, but you would not be prosecuted, the charges would be dropped and you would be released. Not on a case by case basis, but as policy. The only exceptions to this were, if the perpetrator used a firearm in course of the theft, or if this were your third strike under our three strikes law. So if you had no priors and didn't use a gun, you were good to go and steal all the cars you want. Same thing with burglary.
The reason for this is the state and county resources are overwhelmed with the shear volume of crimes being committed. The jails are over crowded and there is pressure on the state to reduce the prison crowding by human rights groups both inside and outside the country. The solutions are, build more jail$$$, let people already in jail go, or just don't jail people in the first place. The last two options are the ones that the state is adopting.
In addition, the DA only has enough money to take the most violent and dangerous criminals to trail. A criminal trial is very slow and expensive. Everybody seems to take the fair trial part of the constitution seriously, but the speedy trial part, not so much. California would have to build more courthouses, hire more judges, more lawyers, more courtroom staff, or just don't prosecute so many cases. They are choosing the later.
I learned all this not from word on the street, or some investigative news report, but from a Lt. in the Oakland Police department that came to talk to our neighborhood watch group. He told us how it is and the truth of the matter. In Oakland they will make zero attempt to find out who broke into your house, or stole your car. They will make zero attempt to recover your stolen things, however if you have serial numbers on file in a police report and they happen to come across your stuff, they will let you know. Oh and that police report? The cops will not be filling it out and filing it, you will. When the cops answer your call, they will direct you to their website where you can download an official police report, fill it out yourself and submit it to them and your insurance company.
Having lived in and amongst this crime and been the victim of it, I perhaps can see the problem more clearly than some. Much to the dismay of the "tough on crime" crowd, I can tell you the solution to this problem is not build more jails and more courthouses. It's also not to just keep letting criminals go free. The real solution is to reduce the amount of criminals. I could go into more details on how to do that, but it feels like a whole other thread to me.
I heard similar stories from Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clark. It's maddening. To add to your list, if a gun is used in the commission of a felony , the FEDERAL gun charge is usually the first charge to be dropped, at least here in Milwaukee.
So in the mean time, more crimes are committed, fewer crimes are prosecuted, and fewer criminals are punished for their crimes. What's wrong with that scenario?
Oh, and Bernie and Hillary are complaining about the statistics of people incarcerated in this country, and promoting policies that will make this situation even worse than it is today.
The inmates are now running the asylum.
-
. The real solution is to reduce the amount of criminals. I could go into more details on how to do that, but it feels like a whole other thread to me.
Step 1) Build the Wall
Step 2) Strictly enforce immigration laws already on the books
Step 3) Deport invaders and their spawn and send the perp's home country a bill for ever single one of them
-
Step 1) Build the Wall
Step 2) Strictly enforce immigration laws already on the books
Step 3) Deport invaders and their spawn and send the perp's home country a bill for ever single one of them
Whatever. ::) I guess it is election year, so we have to stay on message. Sure, cutting off immigration would reduce crime a small amount. It is a component, however the vast, vast majority of criminals in our country are born and bread in the good ol' US of A. That's where the most effective money for crime prevention should be spent, on the American criminal.
-
Step 1) Build the Wall
OK, who builds it and who pays? Be interesting to hear how a sovereign, foreign nation would actually pay the bill. Considering that a big majority come here legally, but end up staying (illegally), not sure a wall will do much good.
2) Strictly enforce immigration laws already on the books
Not a bad idea, again, who pays for the additional enforcement costs? Might run into a bit of opposition from business when their labor force is suddenly depleted.
Step 3) Deport invaders and their spawn and send the perp's home country a bill for ever single one of them
The big ticket item. How much are you willing to increase the national debt to pay for the deportation of 10-15 million people? You could certainly send the bill to Mexico/Guatemala/<insert favorite country>, how will the bill get paid?
We need all the revenue we can get. Let's get all those 10-15 million on the tax roles! Instead of us paying to remove them, let's get the revenue for them to stay and earmark the revenue for debt reduction. They are here and it isn't easy or cheap to get them to leave.
Gary
-
Gary, has some good points. I say remove the incentive for them to come here. Prosecute employers who illegally employ them.
-
I am on point.
The issue is the number of laws that are in place give near-total discretion to the prosecutors to decide whom to incarcerate. If an AUSA got pissed at you, he could put you in jail on a felony charge.
That said, since the Democrats are such great lovers of the regulatory state, they're FAR more likely to make it worse, not better.
That is about as true as anything posted here before.
-
Gary, has some good points. I say remove the incentive for them to come here. Prosecute employers who illegally employ them.
Agreed, but I will challenge something. We already have a law on the books to create a fence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 The Executive is obligated to construct it, and the Congress is obligated to fund it. Both have failed.
-
Agreed, but I will challenge something. We already have a law on the books to create a fence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 The Executive is obligated to construct it, and the Congress is obligated to fund it. Both have failed.
Dang! 6 billion bucks to build a wall!
From the Wikipedia reference:
Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built
Maybe both sides have realized what a colossal waste of money that is.
Gary
-
OK, who builds it and who pays? Mexico, of course! And they will be happy to pay for it!
Be interesting to hear how a sovereign, foreign nation would actually pay the bill. Considering that a big majority come here legally, but end up staying (illegally) Not from south of the border, the visa "extenders" are from other parts.
Not a bad idea, again, who pays for the additional enforcement costs? Might run into a bit of opposition from business when their labor force is suddenly depleted. It''ll pay for itself since a lot less will be spent on services provided to illegals.
The big ticket item. How much are you willing to increase the national debt to pay for the deportation of 10-15 million people? You could certainly send the bill to Mexico/Guatemala/<insert favorite country>, how will the bill get paid? Threaten to stop all trade.
We need all the revenue we can get. Let's get all those 10-15 million on the tax roles! Instead of us paying to remove them, let's get the revenue for them to stay and earmark the revenue for debt reduction. They are here and it isn't easy or cheap to get them to leave. That will just encourage more invaders.
Gary