Man Who Let Darrell Brooks Out Said That Individuals Like Brooks Would Get Out And Kill People...Guaranteed

[mudwhistle]

So he knows that these kinds of criminals will eventually end up killing someone......why in the heck does he stick with his stupid beliefs?

Well....it's a sickness......he's a progressive....it's how they think:

Releasing Dangerous People Into the Community​

One of the nation’s first proudly progressive reformers elected as a major city’s lead prosecutor, Chisholm almost immediately implemented an “evidence-based approach” that relied heavily on deferred prosecution and early intervention programs aimed at keeping criminals out of jail. No longer would the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office request high bails for criminal suspects or even prosecute their crimes. Instead, they would pursue alternatives that Chisholm fully admitted would result in dangerous felons being released into the community.


“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody?” You bet,” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

Waukesha Killing Suspect The Latest Criminal Freed By Soft-On-Crime DA

Inappropriately and dangerously low bail has been a hallmark of the Milwaukee District Attorney’s Office since Democrat John Chisholm was elected.

thefederalist.com

 

[Darkwind]

Make you wonder how it is that he is not charged right alongside those he releases.

 

[Turtlesoup]

So he knows that these kinds of criminals will eventually end up killing someone......why in the heck does he stick with his stupid beliefs?

Well....it's a sickness......he's a progressive....it's how they think:

View attachment 568238

Releasing Dangerous People Into the Community​

One of the nation’s first proudly progressive reformers elected as a major city’s lead prosecutor, Chisholm almost immediately implemented an “evidence-based approach” that relied heavily on deferred prosecution and early intervention programs aimed at keeping criminals out of jail. No longer would the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office request high bails for criminal suspects or even prosecute their crimes. Instead, they would pursue alternatives that Chisholm fully admitted would result in dangerous felons being released into the community.


“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody?” You bet,” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

Waukesha Killing Suspect The Latest Criminal Freed By Soft-On-Crime DA

Inappropriately and dangerously low bail has been a hallmark of the Milwaukee District Attorney’s Office since Democrat John Chisholm was elected.

thefederalist.com

The judge should be equally as guilty as the criminal...and both should be put in front of a firing squad.

 

[iceberg]

So he knows that these kinds of criminals will eventually end up killing someone......why in the heck does he stick with his stupid beliefs?

Well....it's a sickness......he's a progressive....it's how they think:

View attachment 568238

Releasing Dangerous People Into the Community​

One of the nation’s first proudly progressive reformers elected as a major city’s lead prosecutor, Chisholm almost immediately implemented an “evidence-based approach” that relied heavily on deferred prosecution and early intervention programs aimed at keeping criminals out of jail. No longer would the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office request high bails for criminal suspects or even prosecute their crimes. Instead, they would pursue alternatives that Chisholm fully admitted would result in dangerous felons being released into the community.


“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody?” You bet,” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

Waukesha Killing Suspect The Latest Criminal Freed By Soft-On-Crime DA

Inappropriately and dangerously low bail has been a hallmark of the Milwaukee District Attorney’s Office since Democrat John Chisholm was elected.

thefederalist.com

So the fact he knows it will happen doesn't invalidate the idea?

what a fucking moron.

 

[FA_Q2]

Realistically, ALL public policy in a nation of 300 million people will lead to deaths, no matter what the policy is. The core principal innocent until proven guilty ensures as a matter of fact that guilty parties will be let free and will kill someone. Does that make the the principal corrupt or wrong?

No, it does not. It is just a fact of life.

Now, do not take this the wrong way, I am not supporting the position he is taking here in any way at this point but rather stating the hyperbolic reaction to the statement is just silly. Honestly the entire bail system is rather asinine in general. The principals are missing as it is more of a functional reality rather than anything designed to ensure justice.

 

[FA_Q2]

So the fact he knows it will happen doesn't invalidate the idea?

what a fucking moron.

Yes, that is not moronic, it is how public policy is crafted.

I do not support seatbelt laws - they are asinine and bullshit. Repealing them means someone WILL die that did not need to with a law like that in place. Does this make my opposition to such a law invalid?

 

[Turtlesoup]

Realistically, ALL public policy in a nation of 300 million people will lead to deaths, no matter what the policy is. The core principal innocent until proven guilty ensures as a matter of fact that guilty parties will be let free and will kill someone. Does that make the the principal corrupt or wrong?

No, it does not. It is just a fact of life.

Now, do not take this the wrong way, I am not supporting the position he is taking here in any way at this point but rather stating the hyperbolic reaction to the statement is just silly. Honestly the entire bail system is rather asinine in general. The principals are missing as it is more of a functional reality rather than anything designed to ensure justice.

When a judge knows the evidence shows that the suspect is guilty from the git go which was the case here and that the suspect is psychopath that will harm others---his job is to keep the suspect locked up to protect everyone else.

You know that whole we don't let you out if you are a flight risk or a threat to yourself or OTHERS thingy.

 

[iceberg]

Yes, that is not moronic, it is how public policy is crafted.

I do not support seatbelt laws - they are asinine and bullshit. Repealing them means someone WILL die that did not need to with a law like that in place. Does this make my opposition to such a law invalid?

well it means you'd die in a wreck, not kill someone else.

but nice try

 

[mudwhistle]

Realistically, ALL public policy in a nation of 300 million people will lead to deaths, no matter what the policy is. The core principal innocent until proven guilty ensures as a matter of fact that guilty parties will be let free and will kill someone. Does that make the the principal corrupt or wrong?

No, it does not. It is just a fact of life.

Now, do not take this the wrong way, I am not supporting the position he is taking here in any way at this point but rather stating the hyperbolic reaction to the statement is just silly. Honestly the entire bail system is rather asinine in general. The principals are missing as it is more of a functional reality rather than anything designed to ensure justice.

So....is it a good idea to let people be killed to prove a point....or to show the flaws in our court system?

Can't there be a better way to fix this broken system other than causing the murder of innocents?

 

[daveman]

Leftists don't mind at all if you die, as long as the leftist agenda is advanced.

 

[Montrovant]

So....is it a good idea to let people be killed to prove a point....or to show the flaws in our court system?

Can't there be a better way to fix this broken system other than causing the murder of innocents?

Conversely, is it a good idea to lock up the innocent to prove a point, or to show the flaws in the court system?

Additionally, releasing someone does not CAUSE the murder of innocents. It may allow it, or provide opportunity, but it does not cause it. That is no comfort to victims or their loved ones, but it is a consideration when discussing policy.

 

[Mac-7]

So the fact he knows it will happen doesn't invalidate the idea?

what a fucking moron.

Its liberalism from karl marx to adolph hitler

In libs world individuals may be sacrificed for the good of the majority

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There is no end to the power of virtue signaling to progressives.
He does not see his job as protecting the public. Rather, an opportunity to blame the public as the reason why the criminals do what they do - and therefore - deserve leniency.
He is there to protect the criminal from the public. (In his warped mind)

 

[Montrovant]

Its liberalism from karl marx to adolph hitler

In libs world individuals may be sacrificed for the good of the majority

That same sort of argument could be made in the gun control debate. It’s not a liberal specific trait.

 

[LeftofLeft]

So he knows that these kinds of criminals will eventually end up killing someone......why in the heck does he stick with his stupid beliefs?

Well....it's a sickness......he's a progressive....it's how they think:

View attachment 568238

Releasing Dangerous People Into the Community​

One of the nation’s first proudly progressive reformers elected as a major city’s lead prosecutor, Chisholm almost immediately implemented an “evidence-based approach” that relied heavily on deferred prosecution and early intervention programs aimed at keeping criminals out of jail. No longer would the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office request high bails for criminal suspects or even prosecute their crimes. Instead, they would pursue alternatives that Chisholm fully admitted would result in dangerous felons being released into the community.


“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody?” You bet,” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

Waukesha Killing Suspect The Latest Criminal Freed By Soft-On-Crime DA

Inappropriately and dangerously low bail has been a hallmark of the Milwaukee District Attorney’s Office since Democrat John Chisholm was elected.

thefederalist.com

I’ll bet he also feels that vaccine and mask mandates should be enforced because the policy “saves lives”.

 

[Mac-7]

That same sort of argument could be made in the gun control debate. It’s not a liberal specific trait.

I disagree

Human rights as defined by the Bill of Rights cannot be limited by a show of hands

But what the lefty bleeding hearts are doing is at their own discretion and fully inline with the basic principles of the left

 

[FA_Q2]

well it means you'd die in a wreck, not kill someone else.

but nice try

Or I kill everyone in the car with me. ANd it is not the only public policy. Sorry but you did not address the actual point. Dismissing it because you cannot address it is nonsensical and beneath you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Conversely, is it a good idea to lock up the innocent to prove a point, or to show the flaws in the court system?

Additionally, releasing someone does not CAUSE the murder of innocents. It may allow it, or provide opportunity, but it does not cause it. That is no comfort to victims or their loved ones, but it is a consideration when discussing policy.

If you know that someone is dangerous....and has in the past committed violence......releasing them is the primary cause of the resulting murders.
Without them being released.....the murders wouldn't have happened in the first place.
This the same situation as Sandyhook.
They put them out on the street and just let nature take it's course.

I'll take an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure any day.

 

[FA_Q2]

So....is it a good idea to let people be killed to prove a point....or to show the flaws in our court system?

Absolutely not and not what I was getting at.

What I was getting at is that a singular death or a murder is not the singular point that a public policy should be crafted around. There are a lot of other considerations not the least of which is the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty and therefore the government is infringing on your rights when locking you up before you have been determined guilty.

Of course, there is public safety that we are concerned about and that is why such is justified. The question you have to ask is at what point is that policy justified and how far should we take it. In this specific case, I think there is a very coherent argument that people suspected of attempted murder should, as long as a trial is forthcoming soon, be denied bail of any kind whatsoever. It is pretty clear the threat persists and the more evidence against the guilty party the more likely that they are going to ensure they finish the job before going to jail.

HOWEVER, that has noting to do with the statement itself. The DA's statement does not say anything about why this policy is incorrect - the fact that it does not seem to take any nuance or specific details into account does.

To put it quite simply, complaining about the statement misses the target entirely. It is the policy itself that seems to be a problem and not because a singular guilty party may inflict more harm but because their overall outcome of the policy will cause more harm than good.

If you want a truly safe state then an authoritarian police state is what you seek. I do not think either of us are on board with such a terrible society so there is clearly a line between such and this policy.

Can't there be a better way to fix this broken system other than causing the murder of innocents?

Absolutely.

Bail, should, IMHO simply cease to exist. The court should determine if you are likely to run and/or commit more crimes and, if you are, leave you in jail as long as a trial is forthcoming. If neither of those things are true than you should be released. If the police are worried that you might be a larger danger, they have MORE than enough capability of monitoring the situation.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I think that this would be a pretty clear case where a reoffence was highly likely and he should have been kept in jail.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree

Human rights as defined by the Bill of Rights cannot be limited by a show of hands

But what the lefty bleeding hearts are doing is at their own discretion and fully inline with the basic principles of the left

But, here we are, determining that your right to freely associate IS subject to a show of hands.

That would be what locking people up before they have been determined guilty does.