It should be illegal to join or associate with a criminal gang.

I bet their momma's are proud of them yougin's...

 

i don't know, bit the " trump organization" certainly does.

@Sackeshi the crime here is "rico"a law that was written for la casa nostra but applies equally well to the bloods, ms13, hells angels, or the trump organization.

 

"maga" is not a gang, but the "proud boys," " patriot front" and " the "army of god" certainly are.

 

lol. there are not enough "antifa" in the world to block a 9 lane highway.

 

Really?

https://apnews.com/article/virus-ou...r-state-wire-b57315d97dd2146c4a89b4636faa7b70

 

You did mention the "George Floyd protests" etc. Furthermore, I don't think you understood the law here. The state legislature can determine if bail should be applied or the DA may decide on prosecutorial discretion, a completely different legal terminology, and doctrine compared to no bail. Only a judge can say no bail But in general, a defense attorney requires no bail for their clients and the judge may agree with the defense. But "no bail" on certain crimes comes from the state legislature, not the DA.

You really need to understand how the law works and how it applies and so forth. You are mixing and matching things like you are in a GAP store here.

 

Show me the Trump organization person that had a member that was a pot smoking, coke snorting, drug dealing gang member...

 

That is not what I argued Mike. I argued that excessive bail is based on the 8th amendment. Cashless bail is something the state legislature does on certain crimes and that specific state legislation may use the 8th amendment to argue why they are making that argument. NY state, for instance, has made certain crimes have no bail. That was passed by the state legislature in 2020 or 2021 and signed by the governor. And cashless bail is sometimes referred to as a type of bail reform, but it is not the DA here making that choice. The legislature makes the legislation, goes through the legislative process, and if signed by the governor, becomes law in that state.

If you want to try to make this a political game, then you are not being serious here. I am not arguine for or against something, I am quite literally explaining something in which you have responded too on a political gambit.

 

There may be a specific person or persons speaking on what they feel and call themselves Black Lives Matter, but BLM does not speak in one voice much like the GOP does not speak in one voice.

And no, for the record and to make it abundantly clear to you, I am not stating or comparing the GOP to BLM. I am arguing that both organizations do not speak with one voice.

 

Legalize drugs and gangs go away. Besides, aren't you so afraid of being shot you want to imprison all gun owners? Don't become a gang member, and problem solved.

 

That is really not the case or in its simplicity. The doctrine is called prosecutorial discretion in its simplicity, which is what I think you are trying to say here. It is a doctrine steeped in English common law and American jurisprudence.

For example, in the very, very, very, very old days, dueling was quite literally against the law. So, when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr dueled, it was quite literally, and very technically, against the law, but no prosecutor at that time would go after the winner of that duel, or if they would have gone after both of them, arrested both of them, at the time of the event and before the shots were fired. No prosecutor in the south would have done the same in the days of Antebellum even though, on the books, it was illegal by statute in the South. It has nothing to do with woke in todays terms, although you are not arguing this specifically, but it is a doctrine in our American jurisprudence.

To the posters that try to use "woke" or the internet and conservative media who try to use "woke" when prosecutors make prosecutorial discretion decusuibs in political statements on certain people making crimes here. And in some countries, by law or in their Constitution, the prosecutors don't have that luxury, as in Mexico a certain Marine Veteran had firearms, against Mexican law, in his truck when he crossed the border. And thus, he was arrested by the Federales and taken to jail. But the irony of that situation is beyond measure or words to go into further detail.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/what-is-prosecutorial-discretion-.html

 

Laws make gangs powerful. They enjoy a steady stream of income from illegal drugs and guns. They use that money to fund an image that young people look up. Putting people in prison for the purpose of weakening gangs would be like putting drug users in a crack house for the purpose of getting them clean.

Also, you would completely eliminate hope for those in a gang wanting help.

Your proposal would make the problem worse.

 

No I'm not. You are bringing things up that I didn't mention, like the term prosecutorial discretion, and applying that to bail, which again, I didn't do. So those are two separate issues, one that you brought up. None of this was my argument in the first place.

This was my argument:

Now you may, as you seem to, disagree that bail and the actual DA's have any effect on crime, but you've yet to make any argument about it. If you have an argument on why crime has gone up, please share it.

 

What excessive bail? Could you point out where in this argument excessive bail was brought up?

 

By that definition, every member of Congress a gang member. All branches of the military are all gangs. Every police force in the country... gangs. The FBI, IRS, CIA... they're all gangs too. Should they be illegal? ...Well, probably so.

 

You need to reread your post. YOu introduced three separate, but distinct concepts in American jurisprudence in your post: first, cashless bail, second prosecutorial discretion, aka "easy dismissal of felonies," and third, the social protesters were aka felons and should be locked up and the key thrown away, figuratively speaking. And yes, that is the only logical way to read your post.

The DA does not make cashless bail. The state legislature does. The state legislature decides which crimes do and does not require bail or the options for bail and so forth. This is under legal criminal proceedural law within that state. The DA may not have a choice. For instance, certain drug offenses now in California and NY State do not require bail if certain conditions are met. But the defense attorney will make that argument. The DA will make a different argument, if they can, and the judge will rule. The only states that have done this is California and NY State, but proposals in Michigan, Wiscounsin and even Texas has proposed some similar laws.

Prosecutorial discretion is as old as this country and steeped in English common law as well as American jurisprudence. When it came to most of the protesters, they weren't felonies that got dismissed, they were misdemeanors. And in all states Class A or B misdemeanors are arrestable, some without any option under the law. But again, defense attorneys will make the arguments to either have them fined on a lesser charge or have the case dismissed based on the evidence that the public has not seen but both the Defense and Prosecution have. And that is what happened with many of the 18000 arrests in the several states. But the more serious offenses, the ones where the property was damaged or police officers hurt, no, they were not dropped. All you are doing here is repeating the internet gossip in conservative social "washiterias" by people who don't know a damn thing about the American Judicial System except what they see on TV. And that is on you alone.

finally, let's look at that last comment. In essence, you were arguing against prosecutorial discretion and do not want any leeway in which the prosecution while also stating as a group, that all social protesters arrested were felons and so forth. One, that is not the case. Second, each case is weighed on its merits. Third, you are quite literally trying to keep a minority group down in your "Archie Bunker" white nationalist pride here. They are entitled to all the same legal defenses and other avenues as you are, and yet, you are arguing that they should not have that right. And that argument is straignt out of the White Nationalist movement.

 

the state legislatures that argued for and passed legislation for certain crimes to have no bail used the 8th amendment as their reasoning, namely excessive bail.

 

That's at least the second time you've stated that I've argued against prosecutorial discretion, and I was going to ask you got quote me on that, but then you wrote this, "you are quite literally trying to keep a minority group down in your "Archie Bunker" white nationalist pride here."

So I really don't have to take you seriously anymore. That was a major clue that you were never going to be an honest poster or have an honest discussion.