The police have failed, as an organization, sure, they aren't all bad, but when it comes to trusting the justice system, they have failed too many times to deserve the benefit of the doubt. So i don't know about "we don't need police" but we need independent review of every procedure, and all new leadership, and personnel review. That is way more important than anything to do with statues. So the DOJ obviously failing to prioritize.
Originally posted by truejedi
The police have failed, as an organization, sure, they aren't all bad, but when it comes to trusting the justice system, they have failed too many times to deserve the benefit of the doubt. So i don't know about "we don't need police" but we need independent review of every procedure, and all new leadership, and personnel review. That is way more important than anything to do with statues. So the DOJ obviously failing to prioritize.
So, in other words, breaking the law is perfectly fine because some cops have done bad things. 🙄
No, the priority is enforcing the goddamn law, that's the priority, libtard. Law isn't supposed to stop being enforced because some people retardedly think that there is a nationwide agenda by the cops to exterminate black people.
Some of you looney leftists are so damn dumb...smh. The law doesn't take a vacation because some people were wrongly killed by a few cops, ffs.
The DoJ's highest priority is enforcing the law and punishing those who break it... and rightly so.
Im not even liberal. 2016 was the first election i wasnt straight ticket Republican.
If you have eight hours in the day, the DOJ needs to be spending all eight getting their police departments straightened out. Wasting 2 because OMG statues is showing how much they don't understand they have a full blown crisis in their midst. They have a small window here to get their own house in order, or else they will find that when American people lose all confidence in the justice system, all hell will break loose.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So, how much damage should people be allowed to do to your personal property before being charged with a felony?
I'm not sure it should ever be a felony. If we were to go by some limit I'd probably more base it on the impact on the owner and the circumstances surrounding the situation. But ultimately I think misdemeanor charges and of course liability in a civil case more than cover most things I can think of. So I think the question is more how damaging is the property damage to a person or society as a whole.
Originally posted by Artol
I'm not sure it should ever be a felony. If we were to go by some limit I'd probably more base it on the impact on the owner and the circumstances surrounding the situation. But ultimately I think misdemeanor charges and of course liability in a civil case more than cover most things I can think of. So I think the question is more how damaging is the property damage to a person or society as a whole.
So, if rioters do $56,000 worth of damage to your house. you'd be ok with them only being charged with a misdemeanor?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Would the same hold true for other crimes?
That's a pretty broad question. Could you specify what you mean? I do think that there are crimes where considerably longer sentences than what misdemeanors come with are appropriate. I would reform the loss of civil liberties and the duties surrounding a felony conviction though.
Originally posted by Silent Master
If someone doing $56,000 in damage to your house is a misdemeanor, what about someone stealing $56,000 dollars from you?
Again, I think what is relevant is the impact that it has on the person. If you steal 56,000$ from a grandma that has $57,000 that has a huge negative impact on her, and may be very detrimental to her health and life, in that light it may be prudent to increase the sentencing (again under the caveat of not losing your civil liberties outside of the right to free movement). If you steal $56,000 from the government or Bill Gates I think that is a completely different situation. And the same with the property damage. But ultimately yes, even stealing $56,000 from me or from an old grandma should probably be covered under a misdemeanor and in civil court.
Originally posted by Artol
Again, I think what is relevant is the impact that it has on the person. If you steal 56,000$ from a grandma that has $57,000 that has a huge negative impact on her, and may be very detrimental to her health and life, in that light it may be prudent to increase the sentencing (again under the caveat of not losing your civil liberties outside of the right to free movement). If you steal $56,000 from the government or Bill Gates I think that is a completely different situation. And the same with the property damage. But ultimately yes, even stealing $56,000 from me or from an old grandma should probably be covered under a misdemeanor and in civil court.
Do you realize the effect on crime that such a change would cause?