Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I say, "TAKE AWAY THEIR PUBLIC HOUSING" if the neighbors are criminals and refuse to cooperate.
of course you do.
and i'm sure you'll be the first one to protect them when they DO cooperate. Right?
Tair Rivers, 27, said officers yelled, "What happened to the little girl?" as they arrested her and other women. Rivers was arrested for outstanding parking tickets, she said.
Rivers lives in 13-H, an apartment right across from 13-C where the party occurred. She said she was not home over the weekend but would not hesitate to tell police if she knew something.
"We all got kids," Rivers said. "If we knew something, we would tell."
Nice try Jillian. Not my job. If a community can't come together to stop this, no one can. Defending people that withhold this info from the police is amoral. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Scaring people into doing the right thing may be all the cops have right now. Good for them.
And that 15 year old sister should be tried a an adult and put away forever. Why isn't she talking? Lawyered up?
If you snitch, the police cannot protect you, unless they are willing to move you to another state.
I live in a dangerous neighborhood. My ability to "see no evil" is one of the reasons why my internal organs remain internal.
"Arm yourself, coward!"
It worked in a Fistfull of Dollars, so it'll work in real life! Plus, it's fun to live every day expecting to be ambushed.
Nice try Jillian. Not my job. If a community can't come together to stop this, no one can. Defending people that withhold this info from the police is amoral. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Scaring people into doing the right thing may be all the cops have right now. Good for them.
Scaring people into doing the right thing? Even if "the right thing" means they or their family's lives are put in danger? I don't know. I think that kind of choice belongs to the individual who takes that risk - not forced on them from someone else who takes absolutely no risk.
These people live in violent neighborhoods. Who's going protect them or their families? Moving is usually not an option.
And that 15 year old sister should be tried a an adult and put away forever. Why isn't she talking? Lawyered up?
Totall agree.
The 15 year old is a victim herself. Maybe from as young as her little sister. Meanwhile, I disagree about the choice thing where it comes to calling the police over violent crimes. There is an ethical imperative to do the right thing in this regard, and rational self-interest in standing up for others wherever one lives. No one can clean your house. If the police won't respond, then complain as a group to the city council and mayor. People DO need to stand up, and stand together.
The 15 year old is a victim herself. Maybe from as young as her little sister. Meanwhile, I disagree about the choice thing where it comes to calling the police over violent crimes. There is an ethical imperative to do the right thing in this regard, and rational self-interest in standing up for others wherever one lives. No one can clean your house. If the police won't respond, then complain as a group to the city council and mayor. People DO need to stand up, and stand together.
Here is a prime example of the problem. Excusing the behavior of people because they are supposedly "victims".
Scaring people into doing the right thing may be all the cops have right now. Good for them.
The criminal justice system is not fair. If you expect fair, don't get mixed up with it. Stuff like this goes on all the time.
Police find drugs in a house. They tell the man of the house if he doesn't confess to the drugs, they will jail him and his wife and see to it that his children wind up in a children's home somewhere.
Prosecutors have a case to file against a defendnant who is currently serving time in state prison. They wait until a week before he is due to be released and then file the case, so he will have to serve back to back sentences - the one he just finished and the one on the newly filed case.
A state supreme court rules that whenever anyone is convictred of any crime and is put on probation, it is legal to include a search and seizure provision in the terms of probation requiring the probationer to submit to search and seizure at any time of the day or night, with or without probable cause, overtuning decades of law which had previously held that a search waiver condition of probation is not legal unless it bears some rational relationship to the crime committed.
Police promise a suspect that they will release him if he confesses. He confesses. They don't release him.
Detectives tell a defendant that if he will turn snitch, the charges against him will be dismissed. The defendant, at great personal risk, turns in half a dozen drug dealers, only to have the police turn their backs on him when they have all the information they think they are going to be able to get out of him.
Police pull a car over for no reason, order the occupant out, search the car and the person of the occupant, find contraband, make an arrest and then write a report which says they pulled the car over because of a defective tail light, failure to signal a turn, etc.
This kind of stuff happens all the time. Of course, it never happens to the "good guys," so the "good guys" not only don't care - they ENDORSE it.
I'm sure all this has happened even as the system you just described does work effectively and honestly most of the time. I am convinced that there are bad lawyers, bad cops, and bad judges, but there are far more good ones than bad ones.
Happened (past tense)? I assure you, it happens on a daily basis. The system works effectively most of the time - "honestly" depends on your perspective. Of course there are bad lawyers, bad cops, bad judges, bad dentists and bad acupuncturists (not really sure there are any good acupuncturists - but I digress). That's not the point. This kind of stuff happens all the time for a reason.
The reason is complicated - it involves a combination of an "end justifies the means" attitude on the part of the police, combined with a judicial tolerance for what is going on occasioned by a good, healthy dose of self interest on the part of the judiciary. You see, every six years or so, judges have to run for re-election. They correctly sense that the general mood of the public these days is a "get tough on crime" attitude - a "hang 'em high" mentality, if you will.
Judges know that if they don't do just about everything the prosecutors want, come next election, they might have someone (usually a disgruntled prosecutor) running against them and claiming they are "soft on crime." That's the LAST thing any judge wants. Hence, they bend over backwards to make sure the prosecutor gets what he/she wants and I can assure you that isn't a system that gives defendants a break.
And working around and in the courts over the last couple of decades, it was quite apparent to me that a great many criminals are also not arrested or not charged or not convicted and/or are released on a technicality.
Have you actually worked in a criminal court? If so, I don't think you would be saying what you are saying here. Criminals were getting released on "technicalities" with regularity back in the 60's and early 70's because the decisions of the Warren court were still in effect. Since the mid-70's, however, more conservative judges have been chipping away at the Warren court decisions. Miranda has been so watered down, it is almost impossible to recognize it today.
The pendulum has swung the other way from the 60's when it comes to criminal justice, believe me. The combination of prosecution minded judges plus appellate decision which effectively shift things in favor of the prosecution and away from the defense, has pretty much guaranteed a huge advantage for the prosecution these days.
The U.S. legal system is far kinder to the criminal and/or law breaker than it is to the victims of crimes.
Well, this is obviously a subjective judgment which depends largely on one's personal point of view about the criminal justice system. I will give you this much: I think that, in many cases, the sentences imposed are not harsh enough - which supports your feeling about victims not being properly taken care of by the system. When it comes to convictions, however, believe me, the system sticks it to the defendants, hands down.
One thing is for sure, it is no deterrant to crime for people to look the other way and condone or accept or justify some of the worst that humans can do to other humans.
I totally agree.
Arresting people isnt going to stop it. Police are treating symtoms and not the actual disease. They arent designed to.
This will continue until people actually turn their hearts to God. And im not talking about mere profession of belief. I'm talking about people actively living their faith and ending the hypocrisy. We are a corrupt society and cant change until we admit it and fix our own lives.
The criminal justice system is not fair. If you expect fair, don't get mixed up with it. Stuff like this goes on all the time.
Police find drugs in a house. They tell the man of the house if he doesn't confess to the drugs, they will jail him and his wife and see to it that his children wind up in a children's home somewhere.
Prosecutors have a case to file against a defendnant who is currently serving time in state prison. They wait until a week before he is due to be released and then file the case, so he will have to serve back to back sentences - the one he just finished and the one on the newly filed case.
A state supreme court rules that whenever anyone is convictred of any crime and is put on probation, it is legal to include a search and seizure provision in the terms of probation requiring the probationer to submit to search and seizure at any time of the day or night, with or without probable cause, overtuning decades of law which had previously held that a search waiver condition of probation is not legal unless it bears some rational relationship to the crime committed.
Police promise a suspect that they will release him if he confesses. He confesses. They don't release him.
Detectives tell a defendant that if he will turn snitch, the charges against him will be dismissed. The defendant, at great personal risk, turns in half a dozen drug dealers, only to have the police turn their backs on him when they have all the information they think they are going to be able to get out of him.
Police pull a car over for no reason, order the occupant out, search the car and the person of the occupant, find contraband, make an arrest and then write a report which says they pulled the car over because of a defective tail light, failure to signal a turn, etc.
This kind of stuff happens all the time. Of course, it never happens to the "good guys," so the "good guys" not only don't care - they ENDORSE it.
Happened (past tense)? I assure you, it happens on a daily basis. The system works effectively most of the time - "honestly" depends on your perspective. Of course there are bad lawyers, bad cops, bad judges, bad dentists and bad acupuncturists (not really sure there are any good acupuncturists - but I digress). That's not the point. This kind of stuff happens all the time for a reason.
The reason is complicated - it involves a combination of an "end justifies the means" attitude on the part of the police, combined with a judicial tolerance for what is going on occasioned by a good, healthy dose of self interest on the part of the judiciary. You see, every six years or so, judges have to run for re-election. They correctly sense that the general mood of the public these days is a "get tough on crime" attitude - a "hang 'em high" mentality, if you will.
Judges know that if they don't do just about everything the prosecutors want, come next election, they might have someone (usually a disgruntled prosecutor) running against them and claiming they are "soft on crime." That's the LAST thing any judge wants. Hence, they bend over backwards to make sure the prosecutor gets what he/she wants and I can assure you that isn't a system that gives defendants a break.
Have you actually worked in a criminal court? If so, I don't think you would be saying what you are saying here. Criminals were getting released on "technicalities" with regularity back in the 60's and early 70's because the decisions of the Warren court were still in effect. Since the mid-70's, however, more conservative judges have been chipping away at the Warren court decisions. Miranda has been so watered down, it is almost impossible to recognize it today.
The pendulum has swung the other way from the 60's when it comes to criminal justice, believe me. The combination of prosecution minded judges plus appellate decision which effectively shift things in favor of the prosecution and away from the defense, has pretty much guaranteed a huge advantage for the prosecution these days.
Well, this is obviously a subjective judgment which depends largely on one's personal point of view about the criminal justice system. I will give you this much: I think that, in many cases, the sentences imposed are not harsh enough - which supports your feeling about victims not being properly taken care of by the system. When it comes to convictions, however, believe me, the system sticks it to the defendants, hands down.
One thing is for sure, it is no deterrant to crime for people to look the other way and condone or accept or justify some of the worst that humans can do to other humans.
I totally agree.
For reasons more complicated than anybody wants me to type here, yes, I have worked in the court system and also with the police and have seen the best and worst both can deliver. If you think judges are more conservative than they used to be, then you obviously have not been around the court system for many years now or it is very different where you are than it is here. Most judges in these parts who have to be elected to their positions run unopposed in election after election. I simply do not believe that bad cops are the norm nor do I believe judges are heavily influenced by the prosecutors. Judges have as much to fear from defense attorneys as they do prosecutors if it is their re-election they are worried about, but in either case I certainly have seen no evidence of that.
I also don't believe that 'bad cops' or police misconduct are the norm. It is so rare, in fact, that any time it is reported, it becomes a major news story.
And there are excellent acupuncturists.
The 15 year old is a victim herself. Maybe from as young as her little sister. Meanwhile, I disagree about the choice thing where it comes to calling the police over violent crimes. There is an ethical imperative to do the right thing in this regard, and rational self-interest in standing up for others wherever one lives. No one can clean your house. If the police won't respond, then complain as a group to the city council and mayor. People DO need to stand up, and stand together.
Here is a prime example of the problem. Excusing the behavior of people because they are supposedly "victims".
15 Year olds aren't minors in your world? Younger than that aren't either? How young does she have to be for you to question her maturity or ability to understand the consequences of introducing her sister to a world SHE shouldn't have been exposed to? And WHY is no one, except in ONE post in this whole thread, looking for their parents? THEY should be hung.
Put 'em in general population in a hard time prison.
As adults.
Arresting people isnt going to stop it. Police are treating symtoms and not the actual disease. They arent designed to.
This will continue until people actually turn their hearts to God. And im not talking about mere profession of belief. I'm talking about people actively living their faith and ending the hypocrisy. We are a corrupt society and cant change until we admit it and fix our own lives.
