Easy solution: Buy Greenland, send the criminals to the northern tip and let them fend for themselves.....
Can't we just ENFORCE the law?!?
- Thread starter BC38
- Start date
Easy solution: Buy Greenland, send the criminals to the northern tip and let them fend for themselves.....
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,542
- Reaction score
- 7,702
...or in this case, the ammunition he confessed was his. I think that's the important point here. The prosecutor went for the easiest conviction. They could have convicted him of all of them but he wouldn't have served any more time. It would have been a ton more work for the prosecutor. The prosecutor no doubt has other cases he needs to work on so put the guy in jail and move on.
Several years ago I served on a Federal jury trying a felon in possession of a weapon charge. He was a drug dealer, and shot another drug dealer in a territory dispute. He should have been charged in state court for malicious wounding, but no one would testify that they saw him shoot anyone. But numerous people did testify they saw him possessing a gun, so it became a federal charge. We found him guilty, and he got the mandatory 15 years.
A few years later, he got "justice", getting killed in jail in a fight.
A few years later, he got "justice", getting killed in jail in a fight.
Me too. Also by giving them short sentences they are in court multiple times which is over loading the court system. Give the maximum sentence with no parole. The courts won't be as crowded and the public will be safer. Larry
smithman 10
US Veteran
Is there any chance?
That this person will be "working" at a real job and paying taxes if he is NOT in the slam?
That this person will be "working" at a real job and paying taxes if he is NOT in the slam?
Last edited:
OP
Then he should have got 10 years for the firearm (it had his DNA on it), 10 years for the ammo, and a few more years for the 2-1/2 ounces of coke he was selling.
Exactly. Repeat offenders being let loose, just so they can commit more crimes, and be arrested and tried again is a big part of the overload.
Last edited:
OP
No, of course not. But he'll be paying sales taxes. So at least that's something
OP
Not only feeding the bail bondsman, but also feeding the skip tracer who works for the bail bondsman.
By being a repeat offender he's also feeding the DA, his court appointed attorney, the bailiff, the court recorder, the clerks, and judge. The revolving door for recidivists keeps them all employed in perpetuity.
What a system.
Last edited:
I expressed a similar opinion to a County ADA about sentencing.
He explained that the defendant, while an acknowledged career criminal, knew as much (or more) about the State Laws dealing with his particular criminal specialty than most Lawyers.
It was a dance between the DA's office and the professional defendant as to how long of a vacation he, the defendant, was negotiation for.
Everybody knew that he would not change his ways but society would be safe from him for a period of time.
Then came the Three Strikes Law. According the ADA there was a monumental migration of these criminals leaving the state for greener pastures.
Now that Three Strikes has been neutered in many ways, California is once again enjoying a wave of new career criminals thus providing politicians another opportunity to "do something about crime".
I have noticed...
...that a huge problem in this country is EVEN enforcement of existing laws. Nine people walk, but the tenth gets the book thrown at them and it is enforced draconically. I know a lot of people that aren't supposed to have guns, but do.
...that a huge problem in this country is EVEN enforcement of existing laws. Nine people walk, but the tenth gets the book thrown at them and it is enforced draconically. I know a lot of people that aren't supposed to have guns, but do.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2024
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 70
I was going to say something along the same lines. Prosecutors have more cases than time. There is only so much court-room time, etc. Federal convicts usually do about 85% of their sentence.
Several times in my career I called the ATF on career criminals in our lockup who were is possession of illegal NFA weapons when they were arrested and was told, no prosecution, just destroy the weapon.
After a while, you stop calling.
After a while, you stop calling.
You think that is bad? Try dealing with immigration and customs law with AUSA…
I can think of two separate instances where a foreign national was smuggling someone in their vehicle, caught by officers… both hidden people were inadmissible to the US… and AUSA declined interest. One, I literally talked to the guy, asked if anyone else was in the truck… he replied his cat, radioed the response… and when he parked, his girlfriend exited with him. Officers on the other side were like… what’s going on? We did what we could as an agency (all parties were removed from the US), but no additional charges shy of that.
Drugs… I found over 2.5 pounds of coke and little less than 1.5 pounds of weed that our K9 missed… but that was returned to Canada because the guy “didn’t mean to be here.”
That all being said… it is a numbers issue. Federal courts can only try X amount of cases. So, prosecutors cherry pick the cases they see zero issue with. That what happened with the three I mentioned above. This also includes specific charges. So if they view that those extra charges in the OP might result in extra “issues” to the case (reasonable doubt)… you see the result. I can think of another case where guy had child porn on his phone… AUSA declined, and we worked with RCMP to get him arrested upon return to Canada (that system is just as bad as ours).
Only times I really see that not being the case is when L/E is on trial (not just Federal). Completely agree (a career where you hate people that are scum like that), but when you get to some of the cases… you really start going “what is happening?” Like that female officer who shot the guy that was driving off with officers next to the vehicle. My eyes, justified deadly force… but because she yelled “taser, taser, taser,” she was convicted. Other end of the spectrum, I had a classmate that was letting in multiple car loads of drugs from Mexico. 23 years… which I feel was WAY too light. I read the trial transcripts, and it is bad when your attorney is arguing that you should get 10 years in prison.
Very similar, but Boston FO makes us call people.
I literally start off telling the agent, “I know you likely aren’t coming out, but…”
Last edited:
Most murderers in NM are out in 15-18 years.
Feds don’t generally set surety bonds. The fed standard is “risk of non appearance or danger to the community . . . “. And bail bond agents are their own skip tracers. You know nothing about the business. If the feds set a bond, it is secured by property or a promise to pay. I wish people wouldn’t comment on things they know nothing about, but that is the world we have created for ourselves . . .
Not only feeding the bail bondsman, but also feeding the skip tracer who works for the bail bondsman.
By being a repeat offender he's also feeding the DA, his court appointed attorney, the bailiff, the court recorder, the clerks, and judge. The revolving door for recidivists keeps them all employed in perpetuity.
What a system.
Last edited:
He clearly pleaded to a 924(c), but I wouldn’t expect you to know that . . .
OP
You sure do like to pick the fly-stuff out of the pepper.
Are you saying the bail bondsman himself tracks down the deadbeats who no-show? They don't hire someone to do that? Aren't those "bounty hunter" types called a skip-tracer? Or did I use the wrong term?
FWIW, the comment wasn't specifically about federal cases but rather about the revolving door justice system in general.
For a guy who's been so involved in law enforcement you make some of the most pro-criminal arguments of anyone I've ever seen.
Very peculiar.
Last edited:
To answer the original question, NO they won't enforce the laws as written.
The anti's have to say that the laws are not working (and conveniently leave out the part about the laws not being used) and scream for more restrictions on honest citizens while they give the criminals a pass.
The anti's have to say that the laws are not working (and conveniently leave out the part about the laws not being used) and scream for more restrictions on honest citizens while they give the criminals a pass.
Doug M.
Member
Most court systems can only try about 5% of the offenders we see. That means we have to focus on the worst of the worst, and that is assuming that there are enough prosecutors and defenders to deal with that load. My county has made a real effort to keep staffing up, and that takes a lot of money. Until about 17 months ago, we were not even close to competitive on salaries and had a hell of a time recruting for either side. Other counties are just having no luck, sometimes without regard to how much they pay. The lack of defense attorneys is being looked at as a civil rights violation in some places. And before you ask, just appointing folks who do other areas of practice is not a good idea - they are not competent in criminal defense and I have seen the aftermath of that, too.
The other reality to be considered is what the legislative bodies give us for sentencing ranges. What the feds did there is driven entirely by what the Congress has given them as tools. Washington (state) has weakened sentencing, removed a strike, passed laws about resentencing, and all sorts of stupid things based on falsehoods and a loss of balance about victims and the impacts on them. They we have counties that based on the same silliness who don't staff their prosecutors' offices with near enough people (assuming they can get the defense attorneys needed). It would take at least 50 more felony DPAs in King County alone to bring them up to our filing standards. There is not enough support for doing so.
The other reality to be considered is what the legislative bodies give us for sentencing ranges. What the feds did there is driven entirely by what the Congress has given them as tools. Washington (state) has weakened sentencing, removed a strike, passed laws about resentencing, and all sorts of stupid things based on falsehoods and a loss of balance about victims and the impacts on them. They we have counties that based on the same silliness who don't staff their prosecutors' offices with near enough people (assuming they can get the defense attorneys needed). It would take at least 50 more felony DPAs in King County alone to bring them up to our filing standards. There is not enough support for doing so.
Similar threads
