Crime and Punishment

[MDlaxfan76]

I do not assign partisan leaning to DA's, only term I have used regularly towards them is cognitive dissonance. I have left the partisan hack to you....try again.

Mmm, when you post an equal amount of tweets from ‘liberals’ complaining about some DA letting off criminals easy your objection to will be more credible. But pretty much without exception you post tweets with right wing commentary accusing ‘liberal’ DAs.

Gotta love it. Pages and years of posts calling out soft on crime liberal DAs and judges. From nearly all far-right sources. But that's not "partisan hackery". End Wokeness? Non-partisan. And when I point out that Republicans are also soft on crime sometimes (you'll never guess who they're normally soft on)? I'm the partisan hack.

I'll wear it proudly though. I post a lot of anti-MAGA stuff because it's anti-American IMHO. And it isn't the direction the country should head. If that makes me a "partisan hack", then so be it.

We've got a justice system that needs some work on many fronts. There are a lot of people in jail for a long time for idiotic stuff like marijuana possession. And a lot of rich people get to avoid justice. And there are some violent criminals are on the street who shouldn't be.

+1 on all.

[youthathletics]

I do not assign partisan leaning to DA's, only term I have used regularly towards them is cognitive dissonance. I have left the partisan hack to you....try again.

Mmm, when you post an equal amount of tweets from ‘liberals’ complaining about some DA letting off criminals easy your objection to will be more credible. But pretty much without exception you post tweets with right wing commentary accusing ‘liberal’ DAs.

Gotta love it. Pages and years of posts calling out soft on crime liberal DAs and judges. From nearly all far-right sources. But that's not "partisan hackery". End Wokeness? Non-partisan. And when I point out that Republicans are also soft on crime sometimes (you'll never guess who they're normally soft on)? I'm the partisan hack.

I'll wear it proudly though. I post a lot of anti-MAGA stuff because it's anti-American IMHO. And it isn't the direction the country should head. If that makes me a "partisan hack", then so be it.

We've got a justice system that needs some work on many fronts. There are a lot of people in jail for a long time for idiotic stuff like marijuana possession. And a lot of rich people get to avoid justice. And there are some violent criminals are on the street who shouldn't be.

You are drawing a connection that is not there...all in the name of not wanting to be wrong.

Tell you what.....find some of my posts where I articulated that it's only "Liberal" DA's performing plea's for crime and I will certainly apologize loud and clear; and if you can not.....you apologize. My stance has been the same forever and most often directed between myself and seacoaster when it comes to lawyers plea dealing crime.

Applies to MDLax as well.

[NattyBohChamps04]

You are drawing a connection that is not there...all in the name of not wanting to be wrong.

Tell you what.....find some of my posts where I articulated that it's only "Liberal" DA's performing plea's for crime and I will certainly apologize loud and clear; and if you can not.....you apologize. My stance has been the same forever and most often directed between myself and seacoaster when it comes to lawyers plea dealing crime.

Applies to MDLax as well.

How about no, my time is better spent. And you wouldn't care if I listed all the posts decrying liberal DAs/judges anyway.

You don't even need to come out and state that it's only "liberal" DAs - your actions have done the talking for you.

If you and others were also posting conservative DAs accepting light pleas and white/white-collar criminals getting off easy, then this would be a much different conversation. But you keep doing you and denying it if you want, it's a free country and this is just a message board.

[Brooklyn]

Republicans are also soft on crime sometimes

tRump certainly proves that by pardoning baby killer Arpissao from Arizona.

[youthathletics]

Seems Sweden is an example of what's to come here in the US? https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1778993772367372608

[Brooklyn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxNUe6vsrPs


Cops knockout a guy who wasn't putting up any resistance whatsoever. One particular shttforbrains who kicked the victim after having him on the ground has a long history of abuse. Let's see the forum's many right wing anti government, pro gun types, have something to say about that.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxNUe6vsrPs

Cops knockout a guy who wasn't putting up any resistance whatsoever. One particular shttforbrains who kicked the victim after having him on the ground has a long history of abuse. Let's see the forum's many right wing anti government, pro gun types, have something to say about that.

Disgusting behavior deserving of the strongest possible censure. Bad cops being protected by their union is just as horrific as a church protecting bad priests.

But, what does this have to do with "pro gun types"? Is a "pro gun type" someone who owns a gun? That's 50% of Republicans and 52% of Democrats and Independents. Or does living in a household with a gun qualify you? That's 66% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats and Independents. Do you label someone who holds a belief in the Second Amendment as a right, not a privilege, as a pro gun type?

You do realize the "anti-government, pro gun, zealot patriot wing nut" cliche represents a tiny percentage of the law abiding gun owners in America. So I'm prompted to ask what you intended to accomplish by tossing out your low effort stereotyping tropes - other than as a fun exercise in trolling? Did someone perhaps go see "Civil War" last night? I hear it's not so good, despite the trailer going viral when it first dropped.

Check out the Liberal Gun Owners podcast some time. You might like it. Tries to step us back from both sides of the gun debate's extreme and absolutist positions - replacing emotional and reactionary thinking - with facts and experientially based solutions. Somewhere therein may lay solutions both sides can agree upon and cooperate on for a greater good which doesn't trample rights. The current "muddy trench warfare stalemate" is accomplishing - not much.

[Brooklyn]

@WaffleTwineFaceoff


I see that you are relatively new here. Those from our days in LP got the references I made. It's sorta like a long story but I'll try to be brief:

First, I was at one time a member of NRA with a law degree just to set the record straight. Government exists to serve, not to enslave.

Second, in the old LP we used to have all these delusional right wingers claim that we need to put restraints on government and that the only way to protect ourselves from tyranny was the Second Amendment. That by having unrestricted access to guns, rifles, weapons, and all that, we would be safer and have more freedom. But when I would challenge these delusionals to extend the right of using weapons en masse against the cops where needed because, they, too, represent the coercive power of the state, these whackos would object. Obviously, these crazies know nothing of principle. Over the years I have repeatedly challenged them to stand up and admit that it is the cops who are the problem and that the public needs to be armed in order to protect themselves and their freedom from them. IIRC only one right winger ever admitted all this was true. Nobody else ever dared to admit I was correct. Too bad you wasn't here a few years ago when I called for the New Black Panthers to re-emerge. I'd love to see 1,000 chapters of these come back:




https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ar ... C3&first=1

As I have shown on numerous references over the years, it is cops who control the drug trade in the cities. By contrast, the Black Panthers CONDEMNED drug use. If the NBPP would have 1,000 chapters or more roaming every city street in the USA, the fent crisis would disappear overnight.

So, dontcha worry ~ am NOT opposed to owning guns. On the contrary, am for everyone having the right to own guns and use them where necessary. If that entails vigilante action against any government group (and, unlike the right wing hypocrites, I mean ANY), so be it.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

@WaffleTwineFaceoff

I see that you are relatively new here.

So, dontcha worry ~ am NOT opposed to owning guns. On the contrary, am for everyone having the right to own guns and use them where necessary. If that entails vigilante action against any government group (and, unlike the right wing hypocrites, I mean ANY), so be it.

Belated reply. Been a busy stretch for me. Not much time to peek in at various sites I enjoy. Just popped by to say I appreciate your reply above.

[Brooklyn]

[cradleandshoot]

I had no idea where to post this. It should scare everyone. The drug cartels are now employing drones to drop their poison with pin point accuracy in the US. Who needs mules anymore when you can now use airmail? Is this a problem for CBP?? Can this even be stopped??

[MDlaxfan76]

I had no idea where to post this. It should scare everyone. The drug cartels are now employing drones to drop their poison with pin point accuracy in the US. Who needs mules anymore when you can now use airmail? Is this a problem for CBP?? Can this even be stopped??

If you'll recall, a lot of the discussion over time has been between those who think the drug issues in America are more or less demand versus supply or vice versa.

Those who think it's mostly a demand issue posit that there's nearly no possibility of eliminating supply if demand is high. And there's a ton of price elasticity and innovation capacity, if demand is high.

Which leads to the question of how we can reduce demand, rather than only focusing such huge resources on seemingly futilely attempting to eliminate supply...

[youthathletics]

My 0.02 ....

We already saw what Oregon tried and reversed in a only a few short years. To think we can stop or even curtail demand is a fools errand.

Look no further than gun violence, which is half of drug overdose...and yet, drugs are not a 2A argument that is in the way of decisions for change. What have we done or even care to do to solve mental/addiction health.....really not much, and how much has it worked...exactly. The USA is just too soft, and frankly I believe as most cops do.....crime payz; its the (money) gift that keeps on giving.

We either build a gazillion more prison cells, get far more strict with crime, prosecution, and jail time....then we are left with only stopping product; that is when behaviors change, otherwise its status quo. Our legal system allows violent criminals to plea to lesser charges, to only force the police to do it all over again.

Gun deaths have doubled in 50 years ~10k to >20k......is that b/c of more guns or crazy people. I say the former and quite sure much of that is a result of more availability to drugs and all that it entails.

[cradleandshoot]

I had no idea where to post this. It should scare everyone. The drug cartels are now employing drones to drop their poison with pin point accuracy in the US. Who needs mules anymore when you can now use airmail? Is this a problem for CBP?? Can this even be stopped??

If you'll recall, a lot of the discussion over time has been between those who think the drug issues in America are more or less demand versus supply or vice versa.

Those who think it's mostly a demand issue posit that there's nearly no possibility of eliminating supply if demand is high. And there's a ton of price elasticity and innovation capacity, if demand is high.

Which leads to the question of how we can reduce demand, rather than only focusing such huge resources on seemingly futilely attempting to eliminate supply...

Depending on how many illicit drugs are being airmailed into the US it is probably in direct correlation of the demand. Your a business guy, you know all about supply and demand. The rub here is nobody ever questions why there is the demand for the product. Apparently trying to warn young people that this chit will kill you doesn't seem to have any impact on the demand.

[MDlaxfan76]

I had no idea where to post this. It should scare everyone. The drug cartels are now employing drones to drop their poison with pin point accuracy in the US. Who needs mules anymore when you can now use airmail? Is this a problem for CBP?? Can this even be stopped??

If you'll recall, a lot of the discussion over time has been between those who think the drug issues in America are more or less demand versus supply or vice versa.

Those who think it's mostly a demand issue posit that there's nearly no possibility of eliminating supply if demand is high. And there's a ton of price elasticity and innovation capacity, if demand is high.

Which leads to the question of how we can reduce demand, rather than only focusing such huge resources on seemingly futilely attempting to eliminate supply...

Depending on how many illicit drugs are being airmailed into the US it is probably in direct correlation of the demand. Your a business guy, you know all about supply and demand. The rub here is nobody ever questions why there is the demand for the product. Apparently trying to warn young people that this chit will kill you doesn't seem to have any impact on the demand.

The opioid epidemic is largely the result of prescriptions for pain that go awry. Super addictive.

There are other drugs that are far less dangerous, yet can also result in destructive addiction...or not so much, akin to alcohol addiction.

We should be decriminalizing, but controlling and regulating akin to alcohol, and spending far, far more on addiction health care (including alcohol). And on education about drug use perils. Criminalization of use never works.

These most addictive drugs, or substitutes, should be available by prescription and cheap but only if in controlled use coupled with addiction counseling. Not a profit source for prescribers. Illicit producers and distributors hard time, but government regulated distribution. And Narcan widely, freely distributed if in addiction counseling.

The cause of death is usually due to users not in control of dosage, and/or drugs cut with other substances. But given legal, inexpensive options, most users actually want to stop and/or at least maintain safety.

[MDlaxfan76]

My 0.02 ....

We already saw what Oregon tried and reversed in a only a few short years. To think we can stop or even curtail demand is a fools errand.

Look no further than gun violence, which is half of drug overdose...and yet, drugs are not a 2A argument that is in the way of decisions for change. What have we done or even care to do to solve mental/addiction health.....really not much, and how much has it worked...exactly. The USA is just too soft, and frankly I believe as most cops do.....crime payz; its the (money) gift that keeps on giving.

We either build a gazillion more prison cells, get far more strict with crime, prosecution, and jail time....then we are left with only stopping product; that is when behaviors change, otherwise its status quo. Our legal system allows violent criminals to plea to lesser charges, to only force the police to do it all over again.

Gun deaths have doubled in 50 years ~10k to >20k......is that b/c of more guns or crazy people. I say the former and quite sure much of that is a result of more availability to drugs and all that it entails.

I gotta say, I have no idea what your logic is above. I really don't follow that stream...

First, Oregon is no where near what needs to be done on a federal level with decriminalization and addiction programs. There are no empty beds, nowhere near enough counselors, and regulated access nowhere near enough available. It cannot be done on a state by state level.

We have extremely high incarceration rates in America as it is, and there's no way it makes sense to spend over $100k a year to incarcerate drug addicts. And spending ridiculous amounts of policing on trying to stop drug trafficking and resultant violence...

Spend some of that money on addiction counseling and provide cheap, safe access to regulated drugs nationwide and the criminals will have no profit incentive to push drugs. Spend additional money on poverty and employment programs, urban and rural.

Focus policing away from usage and on any remaining drug traffic. Be very tough on serious drug traffickers.

Last, maybe you meant latter not former?

We have hugely more guns per capita than we did 50 years ago, especially of high capacity weapons, but weapons of all types are way up per capita. Maybe its also all the crazy gun nuts doing drugs? Is that what you meant?...and there's still a whole lot of gang violence over drug corners etc...but related is that it's crazy easy for those drug trade folks to get access to guns and so the violence is easy and swift. And it's crazy easy for everyone else to carry a gun, whether legally or illegally, whether using alcohol or other drugs or not...it's really not hard to correlate that the highest gun death rates are in the easiest jurisdictions to get a gun, whether legally or illegally.

[youthathletics]

My 0.02 ....

We already saw what Oregon tried and reversed in a only a few short years. To think we can stop or even curtail demand is a fools errand.

Look no further than gun violence, which is half of drug overdose...and yet, drugs are not a 2A argument that is in the way of decisions for change. What have we done or even care to do to solve mental/addiction health.....really not much, and how much has it worked...exactly. The USA is just too soft, and frankly I believe as most cops do.....crime payz; its the (money) gift that keeps on giving.

We either build a gazillion more prison cells, get far more strict with crime, prosecution, and jail time....then we are left with only stopping product; that is when behaviors change, otherwise its status quo. Our legal system allows violent criminals to plea to lesser charges, to only force the police to do it all over again.

Gun deaths have doubled in 50 years ~10k to >20k......is that b/c of more guns or crazy people. I say the former and quite sure much of that is a result of more availability to drugs and all that it entails.

I gotta say, I have no idea what your logic is above. I really don't follow that stream...

First, Oregon is no where near what needs to be done on a federal level with decriminalization and addiction programs. There are no empty beds, nowhere near enough counselors, and regulated access nowhere near enough available. It cannot be done on a state by state level.

We have extremely high incarceration rates in America as it is, and there's no way it makes sense to spend over $100k a year to incarcerate drug addicts. And spending ridiculous amounts of policing on trying to stop drug trafficking and resultant violence...

Spend some of that money on addiction counseling and provide cheap, safe access to regulated drugs nationwide and the criminals will have no profit incentive to push drugs. Spend additional money on poverty and employment programs, urban and rural.

Focus policing away from usage and on any remaining drug traffic. Be very tough on serious drug traffickers.

Last, maybe you meant latter not former?

We have hugely more guns per capita than we did 50 years ago, especially of high capacity weapons, but weapons of all types are way up per capita. Maybe its also all the crazy gun nuts doing drugs? Is that what you meant?...and there's still a whole lot of gang violence over drug corners etc...but related is that it's crazy easy for those drug trade folks to get access to guns and so the violence is easy and swift. And it's crazy easy for everyone else to carry a gun, whether legally or illegally, whether using alcohol or other drugs or not...it's really not hard to correlate that the highest gun death rates are in the easiest jurisdictions to get a gun, whether legally or illegally.

we agree, for the most part, you just didn’t comprehend what I was saying. Access to guns and drugs are rather easy, what we do after caught is the crux.

[NattyBohChamps04]

we agree, for the most part, you just didn’t comprehend what I was saying. Access to guns and drugs are rather easy, what we do after caught is the crux.

I love that you're worried about rounding up the cattle after they escape. So much easier than preventing them in the first place.

Reactionaries all around. Huzzah!

[youthathletics]

we agree, for the most part, you just didn’t comprehend what I was saying. Access to guns and drugs are rather easy, what we do after caught is the crux.

I love that you're worried about rounding up the cattle after they escape. So much easier than preventing them in the first place.

Reactionaries all around. Huzzah!

Please clarify?

My argument is simple, its the same argument you all have about guns. You want guns off the street, I want drugs off the street and further....not allowing (drugs) them in the US. How you all somehow think treating addiction in millions is the first line of stopping this, needs clarification and how we plan to finance and support this...do tell.

[youthathletics]

Feds suing Sheetz, alleging background checks are racially motivated for hiring:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/she ... rcna148567