Democrat DA Orders No More Arrests for Breaking-Entering, Shoplifting, Property Destruction, Etc.

[Uncensored2008]

Denying facts won't make them go away. If you would bother to actually break and down and read her memo, she states clearly that from now on "the default" action will be *not* to prosecute the crimes listed in her memo, and that the only way that the default action cannot be followed is with supervisor permission. So "the default" action on such crimes is not to prosecute them. Do you know what "default" means?

And, pray tell, with Rollins in charge of the DA's office, how has there been a problem with "improper prosecution" for crimes such as breaking and entering, larceny, shoplifting, trespassing, and even resisting arrest? How can you "improperly prosecute" someone for resisting arrest, breaking and entering, property destruction? If they committed the crime, what is "improper" about prosecuting them for it? Hey? Explain that one to us.

Of course I know what default means. All the things on that list can still be prosecuted if a more experienced supervisor feels it is proper. All they have to do is ask. Taking those decisions out of the hands of inexperienced people sounds like a good thing to me. You think a more experienced supervisor will let people go when they should be prosecuted?

Yes they will. It's called kissing up. The prosecutors (knowing the will of the commie DA) will be hesitant to take any action unless no other alternative is available.

Got it. An inexperienced newcomer's judgment is better than an experienced prosecutor. I'm always amazed at right wing logic.

By the opposing logic a seasoned hooker would make a better wife. After all... Of all people; she should know what makes a man happy...
I’m always amazed at Leftwinger logic...

Are you actually trying to argue that less experience is better than more experience? Yep, right wing logic is truly unique.

This has nothing to do with experience, we have a RACIST DA who is pushing radical Soros policy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course I know what default means. All the things on that list can still be prosecuted if a more experienced supervisor feels it is proper. All they have to do is ask. Taking those decisions out of the hands of inexperienced people sounds like a good thing to me. You think a more experienced supervisor will let people go when they should be prosecuted?

Yes they will. It's called kissing up. The prosecutors (knowing the will of the commie DA) will be hesitant to take any action unless no other alternative is available.

Got it. An inexperienced newcomer's judgment is better than an experienced prosecutor. I'm always amazed at right wing logic.

By the opposing logic a seasoned hooker would make a better wife. After all... Of all people; she should know what makes a man happy...
I’m always amazed at Leftwinger logic...

Are you actually trying to argue that less experience is better than more experience? Yep, right wing logic is truly unique.

Depends upon which arena that experience is in; and how you expect the person to perform.

Sorry. I;ll read your remark as soon as I can make sense of that NAZI slogan in your sig line.

 

[Blues Man]

When I first saw this story, I thought it had to be an April Fools joke. But, it is not. Democrat Rachel Rollins, the DA of Suffolk County, which includes Boston, has ordered the police to stop arresting people for breaking and entering, destruction of private property, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, and other crimes. She has also ordered the police not to cooperate with ICE in arresting illegal immigrants in courthouses, regardless of their crime.

This, folks, is a step toward the situation in Venezuela and in so many other Third World countries where the rule of law does not exist or is very unreliable.

Vicki Batts puts it well when she says,

While Rollins may say her memo is about creating an “equal” justice system, the victims of these now-permissible crimes aren’t likely to feel they are being treated equally. But of course, that’s really the goal here, isn’t it? No one cares about the shopkeepers and homeowners that are victimized. Under far-left dogma, criminals are the true victims, we’re just too “hateful” to see it.​

Left-Wing Cities Going Lawless - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Another Soros-Linked District Attorney Blocks Boston Police from Making Arrests on Shoplifting, Destruction of Property, Resisting Arrest, Drug Offenses... No Deportation of Illegals

If you think these articles must be exaggerating, here is Rollins' memo:

Rachael Rollins for Suffolk DA | Charges To Be Declined

Doesn't surprise me. This from the state where the former DA said people shouldn't defend themselves but rather should wait for the cops to inervene

 

[Vastator]

Yes they will. It's called kissing up. The prosecutors (knowing the will of the commie DA) will be hesitant to take any action unless no other alternative is available.

Got it. An inexperienced newcomer's judgment is better than an experienced prosecutor. I'm always amazed at right wing logic.

By the opposing logic a seasoned hooker would make a better wife. After all... Of all people; she should know what makes a man happy...
I’m always amazed at Leftwinger logic...

Are you actually trying to argue that less experience is better than more experience? Yep, right wing logic is truly unique.

Depends upon which arena that experience is in; and how you expect the person to perform.

Sorry. I;ll read your remark as soon as I can make sense of that NAZI slogan in your sig line.

There’s a safe space out there fore you... It’s called “deflection”...

 

[candycorn]

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards..

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Of course you left off the rest of the story:

"Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors."

View attachment 254297

Why is it that whenever you post something, it is intentionally misleading?

What the DA is saying is essentially this:

More crimes that in the past bought you jail time will be handled like a speeding ticket or other minor violation. There is still a penalty for committing these acts; the difference is that it no longer involves a trip to County.

Your reply is what is misleading. The statement you quoted supports everything I've said and refutes your attempt to whitewash the policy. I stated in the OP that under this policy these crimes could be prosecuted if a supervisor approved. But, the fact remains that the new DEFAULT is not to prosecute these crimes. Again, do you know what DEFAULT means?

You see, in the rest of the country, the DEFAULT is to prosecute all such crimes. Rollins has now flipped this standard. Under her policy, such crimes will either be dismissed outright (which is the preferred option under her policy) or treated as civil matters (which of course do not create a criminal record). Read her own subtitle to her policy: Charges for which the Default is to Decline Prosecuting. The DEFAULT is now to "DECLINE PROSECUTING." Got it?

You frequently play the game of quoting some text from a link in an OP that was not quoted in an OP and then acting like the quoted text proves the OP is misleading, when in fact it does not prove any such thing.

You should quote someone in their entirety.
There are still penalties for the crimes you listed. It just will not be done via the court system.

Woh there, Missie? Like how will that work? Plead guilty and get a wrist fondle??

Greg

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

 

[candycorn]

You should quote someone in their entirety. There are still penalties for the crimes you listed. It just will not be done via the court system.

You should stop being dishonest and admit that nothing I did not quote changes the essential fact that (1) Rollins' policy flips the normal standard and makes the default response to such crimes to be non-prosecution, and (2) that only with a senior prosecutor's (supervisor's) approval can any of those crimes be prosecuted.

I provided the link to Rollins' memo. You guys always play this game of going to a link, finding something that was not quoted, quoting it, and then acting like the quoted material disproves the OP, when it does no such thing. Again, nothing I did not quote changes the essential facts given in the OP. Go read the Boston Globe article.

Given Rollins' race-based ideology and ideological motivations for her policy, how often do you think senior prosecutors will approve prosecution of the crimes on her list, especially when she, the DA, has said they are crimes for which "the Default is to Decline Prosecuting"?

Oh shut the **** up. You intentionally left off salient details because it doesn’t fit your narrative. It’s stock and trade with right wing nut jobs.

 

[candycorn]

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards..

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Of course you left off the rest of the story:

"Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors."

View attachment 254297

Why is it that whenever you post something, it is intentionally misleading?

What the DA is saying is essentially this:

More crimes that in the past bought you jail time will be handled like a speeding ticket or other minor violation. There is still a penalty for committing these acts; the difference is that it no longer involves a trip to County.

B&E should be treated as attempted murder
Unquestionably every time it is s committed.
Why? Because the asshole doing it is also endangering his own life.

Jo

Again, the OP was misleading about that.

The actual passage reads as follows:

• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property

 

[candycorn]

Alternative sentencing would eliminate this forced acceptance of lawlessness.

Use caning or whipping in public. Give the criminal a video of himself or herself stripped to the waist, tied to a pole, getting a striped back.

The American boy caned for graffiti in Singapore never did it again.

MAGA…

Public whippings.

But then again you’re the moron who thinks you can’t co-exist with black people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards..

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Wow

Just ******* wow

 

[xyz]

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards..

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Some of those are total bullshit charges and should not end up in an arrest. Especially the stand alone resisting arrest charge, it is a poor excuse to allow the police to abuse citizens.

 

[Uncensored2008]

MAGA…

Public whippings.

But then again you’re the moron who thinks you can’t co-exist with black people.

Say, you Hamas types favor Sharia law. Don't countries under Sharia pretty regularly engage in public floggings?

Not to mention suicide bombings....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Of course you left off the rest of the story:

"Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors."

View attachment 254297

Why is it that whenever you post something, it is intentionally misleading?

What the DA is saying is essentially this:

More crimes that in the past bought you jail time will be handled like a speeding ticket or other minor violation. There is still a penalty for committing these acts; the difference is that it no longer involves a trip to County.

Your reply is what is misleading. The statement you quoted supports everything I've said and refutes your attempt to whitewash the policy. I stated in the OP that under this policy these crimes could be prosecuted if a supervisor approved. But, the fact remains that the new DEFAULT is not to prosecute these crimes. Again, do you know what DEFAULT means?

You see, in the rest of the country, the DEFAULT is to prosecute all such crimes. Rollins has now flipped this standard. Under her policy, such crimes will either be dismissed outright (which is the preferred option under her policy) or treated as civil matters (which of course do not create a criminal record). Read her own subtitle to her policy: Charges for which the Default is to Decline Prosecuting. The DEFAULT is now to "DECLINE PROSECUTING." Got it?

You frequently play the game of quoting some text from a link in an OP that was not quoted in an OP and then acting like the quoted text proves the OP is misleading, when in fact it does not prove any such thing.

You should quote someone in their entirety.
There are still penalties for the crimes you listed. It just will not be done via the court system.

Woh there, Missie? Like how will that work? Plead guilty and get a wrist fondle??

Greg

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

 

[Wyatt earp]

When I first saw this story, I thought it had to be an April Fools joke. But, it is not. Democrat Rachel Rollins, the DA of Suffolk County, which includes Boston, has ordered the police to stop arresting people for breaking and entering, destruction of private property, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, and other crimes. She has also ordered the police not to cooperate with ICE in arresting illegal immigrants in courthouses, regardless of their crime.

This, folks, is a step toward the situation in Venezuela and in so many other Third World countries where the rule of law does not exist or is very unreliable.

Vicki Batts puts it well when she says,

While Rollins may say her memo is about creating an “equal” justice system, the victims of these now-permissible crimes aren’t likely to feel they are being treated equally. But of course, that’s really the goal here, isn’t it? No one cares about the shopkeepers and homeowners that are victimized. Under far-left dogma, criminals are the true victims, we’re just too “hateful” to see it.​

Left-Wing Cities Going Lawless - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Another Soros-Linked District Attorney Blocks Boston Police from Making Arrests on Shoplifting, Destruction of Property, Resisting Arrest, Drug Offenses... No Deportation of Illegals

If you think these articles must be exaggerating, here is Rollins' memo:

Rachael Rollins for Suffolk DA | Charges To Be Declined

Wonder what happens when someone rob's her?


.

 

[The Irish Ram]

They are creating the "Jungle", so we won't mind when the UN Rule of Law steps in to save us:

 

[candycorn]

Of course you left off the rest of the story:

"Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors."

View attachment 254297

Why is it that whenever you post something, it is intentionally misleading?

What the DA is saying is essentially this:

More crimes that in the past bought you jail time will be handled like a speeding ticket or other minor violation. There is still a penalty for committing these acts; the difference is that it no longer involves a trip to County.

Your reply is what is misleading. The statement you quoted supports everything I've said and refutes your attempt to whitewash the policy. I stated in the OP that under this policy these crimes could be prosecuted if a supervisor approved. But, the fact remains that the new DEFAULT is not to prosecute these crimes. Again, do you know what DEFAULT means?

You see, in the rest of the country, the DEFAULT is to prosecute all such crimes. Rollins has now flipped this standard. Under her policy, such crimes will either be dismissed outright (which is the preferred option under her policy) or treated as civil matters (which of course do not create a criminal record). Read her own subtitle to her policy: Charges for which the Default is to Decline Prosecuting. The DEFAULT is now to "DECLINE PROSECUTING." Got it?

You frequently play the game of quoting some text from a link in an OP that was not quoted in an OP and then acting like the quoted text proves the OP is misleading, when in fact it does not prove any such thing.

You should quote someone in their entirety.
There are still penalties for the crimes you listed. It just will not be done via the court system.

Woh there, Missie? Like how will that work? Plead guilty and get a wrist fondle??

Greg

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

 

[westwall]

When I first saw this story, I thought it had to be an April Fools joke. But, it is not. Democrat Rachel Rollins, the DA of Suffolk County, which includes Boston, has ordered the police to stop arresting people for breaking and entering, destruction of private property, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, and other crimes. She has also ordered the police not to cooperate with ICE in arresting illegal immigrants in courthouses, regardless of their crime.

This, folks, is a step toward the situation in Venezuela and in so many other Third World countries where the rule of law does not exist or is very unreliable.

Vicki Batts puts it well when she says,

While Rollins may say her memo is about creating an “equal” justice system, the victims of these now-permissible crimes aren’t likely to feel they are being treated equally. But of course, that’s really the goal here, isn’t it? No one cares about the shopkeepers and homeowners that are victimized. Under far-left dogma, criminals are the true victims, we’re just too “hateful” to see it.​

Left-Wing Cities Going Lawless - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Another Soros-Linked District Attorney Blocks Boston Police from Making Arrests on Shoplifting, Destruction of Property, Resisting Arrest, Drug Offenses... No Deportation of Illegals

If you think these articles must be exaggerating, here is Rollins' memo:

Rachael Rollins for Suffolk DA | Charges To Be Declined

The articles are lies, baseless demagoguery, and hasty generalization fallacies.

What one individual might say or do is not ‘representative’ of an entire class of persons.

And there are no ‘left-wing’ cities.

And you are the very definition of "Epsilon, semi-moron". Look it up. It's in a pretty advanced book though, so you'll probably have trouble reading it. The facts are that PROGRESSIVE (i.e., those cities run under a statist, dictatorial philosophy) cities are rapidly turning into the very third world shitholes that we all know and love.

Why is it that EVERY policy you assholes follow leads to sweeping shit off of city streets and lawlessness?

 

[Kondor3]

To paraphrase a Baltimore Mayor from a few years ago...

" Weze jus' gots'ta gib 'em sum room ta deee-stroy !"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your reply is what is misleading. The statement you quoted supports everything I've said and refutes your attempt to whitewash the policy. I stated in the OP that under this policy these crimes could be prosecuted if a supervisor approved. But, the fact remains that the new DEFAULT is not to prosecute these crimes. Again, do you know what DEFAULT means?

You see, in the rest of the country, the DEFAULT is to prosecute all such crimes. Rollins has now flipped this standard. Under her policy, such crimes will either be dismissed outright (which is the preferred option under her policy) or treated as civil matters (which of course do not create a criminal record). Read her own subtitle to her policy: Charges for which the Default is to Decline Prosecuting. The DEFAULT is now to "DECLINE PROSECUTING." Got it?

You frequently play the game of quoting some text from a link in an OP that was not quoted in an OP and then acting like the quoted text proves the OP is misleading, when in fact it does not prove any such thing.

You should quote someone in their entirety.
There are still penalties for the crimes you listed. It just will not be done via the court system.

Woh there, Missie? Like how will that work? Plead guilty and get a wrist fondle??

Greg

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards..

Here is the full list of charges that Rollins says will not be prosecuted ("unless supervisor permission is obtained")--notice that it includes resisting arrest(!):

• Trespassing
• Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
• Larceny under $250
• Disorderly conduct
• Disturbing the peace
• Receiving stolen property
• Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
• Wanton or malicious destruction of property
• Threats – excluding domestic violence
• Minor in possession of alcohol
• Drug possession
• Drug possession with intent to distribute
• A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
• A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Of course you left off the rest of the story:

"Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors."

View attachment 254297

Why is it that whenever you post something, it is intentionally misleading?

What the DA is saying is essentially this:

More crimes that in the past bought you jail time will be handled like a speeding ticket or other minor violation. There is still a penalty for committing these acts; the difference is that it no longer involves a trip to County.

B&E should be treated as attempted murder
Unquestionably every time it is s committed.
Why? Because the asshole doing it is also endangering his own life.

Jo

Again, the OP was misleading about that.

The actual passage reads as follows:

• Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property

You are reading it to mean where someone breaks into a vacant property to sleep or get out of the cold. You aren't seeing the OR. This changes the meaning permitting the breaking and entering of occupied property if the purpose is sleeping or getting out of cold. This must be part of calling home invaders uninvited guests.

They will get shot and should get shot.

 

[candycorn]

You should quote someone in their entirety.
There are still penalties for the crimes you listed. It just will not be done via the court system.

Woh there, Missie? Like how will that work? Plead guilty and get a wrist fondle??

Greg

In some jurisdictions that have decided it’s better to allow small crimes to be treated in this manner; Just like your speeding ticket; you can pay the fine or fight it in court. If you don’t fight it, you have the charge on your record so the next time you’re cited for possession, the charges can be enhanced.

The thought is that the courts and jails and police will spend more time (and money) focused on felonies.

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?