Law Enforcement Reform: A rational discussion

You point out the folly in the narrative that they put forth in the OP, and then you stand back and giggle as they aimlessly bicker over literally nothing rather than simply facing the reality that their logic is seriously flawed and has been exposed as such.

 

The question has been answered. You've added nothing to what is supposed to be a RATIONAL DISCUSSION.

And if you've nothing to say. Say it.

 

Wow....so you are going to force lawyers to work for the Govt....that seems rather unjust to me. Why can't a lawyer work for themselves?

 

they can.

But, if they're going to do criminal defense or prosecution they work for the government. An even playing field will encourage ALL people to support reforms.

OJ got off because he had a great defense team. EVERY defendant deserves the same defense regardless of station.

 

No you’re completely ignoring the underlying issue. That is, how do you get cops out of minority neighborhoods and yet keep those neighborhoods safe from the inordinate amount of violent crime that occurs within and will only get worse with less police officers.

 

go back and reread.

These are not "cops."
They are "Public Service Officers"

Try to comprehend the words. I understand your anger and fear hinder your ability to reason but do try.

The whole idea is to separate the "enforcement" function from the "service" function.

If you witness a crime do YOU ignore it?
Then why would you expect the PSO to ignore it?
Do you pick up your phone and report it?
If possible and can be done safely do you record?
If possible and can be done safely do you remain on the scene till LE arrives?

Congratulation. You're a Public Service Officer.

 

If someone wants to do criminal work in your model they can't work for themselves.

The reason his lawyers were great was because they were free to work for themselves and earn as much as they could.

 

PAY ATTENTION.

A large portion of this movement is getting police out of predominantly black neighborhoods.

How does your plan accomplish that while keeping the violent crime down within those neighborhoods?

 

And you think you have a point. ask yourself, do cops or meter maids act as a deterrent to criminals?

See you thought you had something there, but you didn’t. You should try harder next time.

 

Sure they can. They just can't do it for money or do it in a court of law.

That a wealthy person was able to walk free BECAUSE HE WAS WEALTHY is the problem. That you can't see that is a different problem.

 

GO BACK AND REREAD.

They're not "cops"

Is this concept just beyond your intellectual ability or are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

Both and neither.
Unarmed security guards are deterrents
Lights are deterrents.
Dogs are deterrents.
Lots of things are deterrents.
Few deterrents require guns, mace, battle armor, APCs...

Oopsie.

 

Once again, you are limiting ones ability to make money....that's authoritarian thoughts

He walked free because the jury found him not guilty. He was able to get the best lawyers, because the best were available...they were top attorney because they had the ability to earn.

Court-appointed and PD get not guilty verdicts all the time too.

 

No I'm not.

You want to practice in front of the SCOTUS? Sorry that's restricted. No matter how much you want it or how much money you could make doing it you don't get to until the court says you can. Are you saying any old schlub should be able to practice before the SCOTUS because he can make more money?

Want to be a cop? Same thing. No matter how much you want it or how much money you could make doing it you don't get to until the police say you can. Are you saying any old schlub should have arrest authority along with immunity because he can make more money?

The top defense lawyers will still be available.
The top investigators will still be available.
The top forensics people will still be available.
The top court psychiatrists will still be available.
Just not to the highest bidder.

When the rich guy is getting the same justice as the poor guy the rich guy will make sure the system is fair.

 

Well yeah you have to have a case that makes it there first....but then you can once you pay the fee to get sworn in there.

Anyone attorney that has a case that makes it there can practice there.

Police are Govt agents...private defense attorneys aren't....they too have to go through training and get offers for jobs.

Your system robs individuals of the right to any attorney of their choice, and it robs attorneys of the ability to work for themselves and not the PD office. It essentially makes the Govt the prosecutor and the defense.....some defendants might have a major problem with that

 

Where in the constitution is the right to any attorney you choose enshrined? You have the right to AN ATTORNEY.

There is little money in criminal defense. Because of that, most criminal defense attorneys handle a fairly broad caseload. Most criminal defense attorneys would jump at the opportunity for a full time job earning over 100k with benefits and no support staff to pay.

In any case, none of that matters, at all.
The purpose is to ensure equal justice for all.

Not sure how you justify opposition to equal justice.

 

It doesn't unless an awful lot of plea bargaining goes on first. Show me somebody in jail for a small amount pot and I'll show you someone who copt plea to possession to avoid prosecution for armed robbery.

 

I'd love equal justice. But what do you mean by it? Rich guys tend to go to jail for things like embezzlement and tax evasion poor guys tend to go to jail for things like armed robbery. The cops arrest both. The difference is that the rich understand better understand that getting physical with the cops isn't going to get you any where. The poor black and white seem to have missed that lesson.

Now on to the gist of what you seem to be discussing. How do we make the current system. Let's start by doing things to remove political incentives for DAs to jail the first person that shows up on the radar for a high profile crime. We also should make with holding exculpatory evidence from the defense a felony. The purpose of a trial should be to determine guilt or innocence not add another page to some lawyer's resume.

 

This is completely irrational. Are you trying to start a crime wave?
Right now every left wing nut and pony tailed arm chair law professor is trying to have a “discussion” about law enforcement.
There are seriously bad people out there committing rape and murder and robberies and you guys want to cut the nuts off the justice system. Ever think of this? Black people go to jail more because they commit more crime. Disproportionately more. Black men commit more crime because most of them didn’t have fathers.
The reason we have more people in prison than any other country is because we are a nation of laws.
Without police out there enforcing those laws you have chaos and anarchy.
If your sister was being gang raped in the street would you want a cop to show up on foot with nothing but a whistle and a cell phone?
What you are describing is not rational at all.
Look at the cause of crime to stop crimes.

 

The statement in bold is racist. Black people have reason to fear the police. An existential fear. You know, like the fear you feel when you see these guys



Their fear is real. Yours on the other hand, not so much.

You keep pointing to exceptions as if they are the rule. A Black guy caught with 29 grams of pot is charged, held on a bond he can't meet, and convicted of dealing. He has a PD. The White guy with the private attorney being paid $8k for a nothing case gets released on OR and the charges reduced to misdemeanor possession.

BOTH of these people deserve the same defense. The BEST defense.

Right now the rich guy doesn't care. Put his ass in the same sling and then pressure will be applied to equalize crime and punishment.

 

Your fears are understood.
Irrational but understood.
With no basis in reality but understood.

Bigotry does that to people.

If you're interested in returning with a rational comment please do.
Till then
You're more than welcome to ignore this thread.

 

and therefore we need to accept without question the occasional death of an innocent unarmed citizen.

 

Nothing racist about it. The same thing applies to rich black guys that applies to rich white guys. The same thing applies to the poor regardless of race. Please note this doesn't make it right. It simply suggest that the poor regardless of race Creed or color tend to be involved in violent crimes than do the rich. Mostly it's a matter of opportunity. The poor man likely doesn't pay federal income tax or be in a position to embezzle a million dollars. The rich man isn't likely to knock over a convenience store simply because his bank card already gives him access to more money than their is in the convenience store's till.

 

Rationalizing it doesn't change what it is.

 

Facts however do. And you sir are bereft of them.