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

Like BLM and ANTIFA?

 

Neither is centrally organized funny how conservatives are so far gone that they can't take a simple law and order proposal at face value. Are you part of a paramilitary organization?

 

BLM is centrally organized. They have an official platform, a mission statement...

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

 

And what part of their platform is based around fear and intimidation as required under federal law to be a gang?

 

What part?...lol

 

Actually, we're NOT so far gone that we can't see through your subterfuge. You just proved us right by proposing that the Proud Boys and the KKK be designated as criminal gangs, while insisting that BLM and ANTIFA shouldn't

 

I would think the key word here would be "criminal gang". Then it would be guilt by association.

 

Jan 6th is insurrection but this isn't???? Give me a break!

 

The George Floyd riots were open rebellion against the government.

 

I don't think there is much distinction between "criminal gang' and a gang or club according to the OP. He's already designated the Proud Boys as a group that would fall under his designation of a "gang."

 

When I think of a "Criminal Gang" I think of the Doolin Dalton Gang or Bonnie and Clyde or Perhaps MS13.

 

It's not the DA that is doing that. It is the judicial system and the laws therein by state legislature in which certain crimes now have no bail because of the 8th amendment of the "prohibition of excessive bail" doctrine. Second, we have judicial discretion in which the DA has to manage the very limited resources of the state DA's office for that county. And the crimes that are being dismissed is often a regular in the judicial system if you are not familiar with it beyond what you watch on TV. It is just that it is getting full of press coverage, but it has always been there.

Now, if you don't want judicial discretion by the DA, then all crimes, including Trump's crimes, would have to be prosecuted under any and all circumstances. And somehow, I don't think you want that, do you, especially for political figures who may have broken the law and thus will, or shall, be prosecuted, in accordance with the law, that you politically agree with. I personally don't think you have thought this through very well Mikey.

 

Yes, some 1 million are members of gangs, most of whom you probably never even heard before. Of course we have the Crips, the Bloods, MS 13, the 18th street gang, the Tongs, the Aryan Brotherhood, The Texas syndicate, the Mexican Mafia, and the list goes on and on.

The bill you propose violates certain Constitutional protections, namely the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, as well as the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" by the Supreme Court decision I identified earlier in a post. The state with the largest number of DP inmates is California and that has not deterred any gang activity. The state with the most DP executions over the last two decades is Texas and that has not deterred any gang activity.

You are going about this the wrong way. For starters, why do they join gangs? In one word, family. The gang becomes the family, the family the child does not have in one way or the other, at his own home, for whatever reason. And most join the gang out of protection from the other gang, and other things that seem perfectly ration, in a perverted sort of way. Want to get rid of gangs, communal policing. The gangs show that instant "success" story of having money, fast cars or bikes, and women, beautiful women, all done by selling illicit drugs, illegal gambling, extortion, and so forth. That is how you get rid of gangs because what the gangs don't tell you if you join at that vulnerable age is you will either go upstate, ie prison or be buried six feet under, aka, murdered by another gang member, usually one of your own because you violated the rules of the gang by snitching to someone. Hollywood has popularized gangs in our movies and TV shows sometimes. And that is what they see, selectively of course.

 

And freakishly enough, BLM and ANTIFA have done considerably more damage than the KKK, since those groups formed. The KKK are the minor leagues now when it comes to crime and violence. They’re ALL aholes but only 2 of those groups are responsible for billions in property damage and assaults.

 

For someone charged with rape, or murder, or assault; what constitutes "excessive bail"?

 

It already is in many jurisdictions.

 

For those who are accused of rape, excessive bail is not used. A 18 year old kid in Texas was given a very low bail after being accused, and caught in the act, for raping an unconscious woman. But that really depends on state law. We do know with murder, the suspect can be remanded, but the state has to show probable cause to the judge for that to be granted. It is why Kyle Rittenhouse had a $3 million bond in his charges. In addition, simple assault will generally have a $20k bond. An excessive bond for simple assault would be $3 million, for instance.

The other thing you have to remember is that for anyone who is released on bond, certain conditions may apply ordered by the judge. One of them is to keep court dates. Failure to do so means the bond is revoked and increased. Those conditions will apply to the charges specified.

 

Yes but the OP sees the Proud Boys.

 

The 8th Amendment wasn't suddenly discovered in May of 2020. I don't know why you would claim the 8th Amendment for this since there was no court case 3 years ago that radically overturned our understanding.

So I know you weren't serious about this conversation even before you got to "Trump's crimes" You might as well have just put a dunce cap on then. I didn't think you were serious about the criminal justice aspect of this topic and your reply confirmed it.

 

excessive bail is not a number figure, it is a concept in Constitutional law. Bear in mind, the police have the authority to arrest you for even minor violations such as traffic tickets and such. An excessive bail for that offense is say $30,000 and that would be unconstitutional even though the police have the authority to arrest you and you can be arraigned. The point of the post in which you are responding to was serious. The factors involved are numerous, But you did mention prosecuting minor crimes and I gave you A reason why DAs do not do it. It is called prosecutorial discretion, which you were arguing against BTW in your argument that the DA should have prosecuted them anyway even the very minor crimes.

So yes, I am serious. I am just pointing out the very inconvenient truth that if you don't want prosecutorial discretion, then it will affect people with whom you politically agree, period. And that was the other point I was making against you making the lack of prosecutorial discretion.

 

yeah, one of the best techniques used against the El Salvadoran gangs in the USA is to threaten their members with deportation and noting their arrival back in El Salvador will be leaked to the "sombre negra"

 

I didn't mention prosecuting minor crimes other than to note that felonies are being downgraded to misdemeanors. Nor did I mention prosecutorial discretion. You did, and think that's some sort of zinger. These DA's ran on these platforms of not prosecuting crimes, so it's no surprise that in office...they don't prosecute crimes. But I was simply explaining one of the reasons crime has gone up, and you brought up Trump because...of course you did.

 

Yeah you did when you stated, "I think DA's have gone down a wrong path of cashless bail and easy dismissal of felonies." I corrected you that most of the dismissals were misdemeanors already, but that went over your head. That is an argument for lack of judiciary discretion and I simply pointed that out to you in very clear detail. And yes, I am very serious. I just don't involve the usual politics in this. I wil luse certain politicians, ones I know you like, to make the point. But somehow you are focusing more on the garnish than the true essence of the argument.

The 8th has always been there, but state law dictates what bail is supposed to be and what it is not supposed to be. There are very strict limitations when bail can be denied and the defendant remanded. But those are few. But what was happening, for instance in Houston Texas, where a lot of people were accused of minor crimes, bail was set at $5000 for that very minor crime, and the person has no ability to pay. And given the factors, it was proven that this was considered excessive bail, which started the cashless bail, a misnomer BTW, answer. Some will even go on ROR, $500 for some crimes, while others may be arrestable, but is paid for by a fine instead of bail. And if you get on bail, for whatever, it is either in full, with property to back it up, or 10% to 20% down with a bail bondsman covering the rest, along with any conditions that may apply.

 

Well let's not simplify this issue into black and white. DAs probably have been too light-handed on some sorts of cases, but that does not mean DAs should get more heavy-handed on all cases.

 

Your argument was that cashless bail was based on the 8th Amendment. You brought it up, not me. Given there has not been a landmark Supreme Court decision on the issue, it's safe to conclude the the path to revolved around local city political races; councilmen, DA's, and mayors, because that's one of the latest cause du jour of leftist politicians

All of that to say that it's having an effect on crime rates.