The left is bad at crime and punishment: New Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon

[Dan Druff]

So pleas for emotion and generally assuming the worst scenario that's usually covered by other statutes.

So lets get back to the resisting arrest. Is this, "cops who get attacked when trying to do their job, right? Cops' jobs are hard enough without dealing with assholes resisting. Now people get to resist with zero consequence", a scenario that will be dismissed now? I'll answer it for you since you have hard time admitting ever being wrong. Fuck no. Pretty much only thing that's different now is that you might get away with mouthing off, if you're wasted. Touch a cop and you get fucked. Zero change. Doesn't make much of a headline though.

With a board full of multiple lawyers to chime in i don't see the point in randomly guessing what typical cases of trespassing are. Almost any one of them can give a much more educated opinion what are the real changes to current policy. All they have to do is read my first post and ignore your hot takes.

If you slug a cop in the face, you're getting charged.

If the cop is trying to arrest you, and you're thrashing everywhere, not letting him cuff you, and/or trying to run off, you won't get charged now. In fact, if there's a scuffle where you don't clearly hit the cop, again you will walk.

LOL at "mouthing off at the cop". That's almost never part of any prosecuted resisting arrest charge, unless there's a lot more to it than that. As a great Finnish poker forum poster once said, "He probably walks a good percentage of the time anyway."

Let the system do its job without unilateral legislating by the DA. If the resisting arrest charge is BS (such as "mouthing off"), it won't be prosecuted anyway, or it won't hold up in court.

BTW, you're also overlooking that things like resisting arrest can be used to secure a guilty conviction where otherwise it could be a lot tougher. So let's say a shoplifter is being chased by police, and resists arrest (but doesn't outright attack the cop), and is ultimately arrested.

If only found with one stolen item, the shoplifter can say that he absent-mindedly forgot he was carrying the item when he walked out, and then panicked when the police shouted at him to stop. Of course, this would be BS, and indeed the shoplifter was guilty, but convincing a jury of that might be tough. With the resisting arrest charge, the DA's office can threaten to pursue both that and the theft charge, resulting in a lot of potential jail time. This could easily be the factor to where the shoplifter would plead guilty in order to avoid having to gamble against a substantial sentence, whereas he might roll the dice if it's just facing a one-item shoplifting charge.

Negotiations like this go down all the time. Many people plead guilty because there's a big pile of charges on them, and they're willing to accept responsibility for the main thing they did, in exchange for a reduced sentence and the dropping of the peripheral charges. Now that factor goes away.

The left is terrible at crime and punishment. Whenever an election in the US is a referendum on crime and punishment matters, the Democrats get absolutely clobbered. In fact, that was a large reason why Republicans not named Donald Trump did far better than expected in 2020.

[Dan Druff]

Also, as I have said over and over, there's a difference between an internal policy at a DA's office and publicly grandstanding a policy not to charge certain crimes.

The former exists in all DA offices to some degree. The latter is a foolish performance of virtue signaling which only serves to empower people to commit minor crimes with a known lack of consequence.

The fact that I have to keep explaining this to you like a 3-year-old is frustrating.

[gimmick]

"cops who get attacked when trying to do their job" -DanDruff

Exactly how much leeway you think exists in the wording "attacked". And yes courts are known for siding with the civilians against cops since never.

Apparently Dangiel lives in world where your court system isn't an abomination. Jails are free. Your prisons aren't packed. Your courts generally function in a timely manner. Or giving cops the power to function as judge, jury and executioner is a good idea. Oh and Druffs solution to this all is less transparency.

[gimmick]

Oh and thank you for letting me know what i've overlooked. I'll be sure to keep making unreadable walls of text in the future.

[Dan Druff]

"cops who get attacked when trying to do their job" -DanDruff

Exactly how much leeway you think exists in the wording "attacked". And yes courts are known for siding with the civilians against cops since never.

Apparently Dangiel lives in world where your court system isn't an abomination. Jails are free. Your prisons aren't packed. Your courts generally function in a timely manner. Or giving cops the power to function as judge, jury and executioner is a good idea. Oh and Druffs solution to this all is less transparency.

LOL "transparency".

You don't need the DA's office informing the criminal population which crimes they can commit and never be prosecuted. If you can't understand why grandstanding a public display of this information is a horrible idea, I don't know what to tell you.

Care to show me an example of someone who was convicted of "mouthing off at the cops" who wasn't also guilty of something much worse at the same time? People are actually under-prosecuted for resisting arrest, rather than over-prosecuted, for the exact reasons I stated. Usually it's a ride-along charge, meant to increase the likelihood of some kind of conviction or guilty plea. Besides, all of LA's cops wear body cams, so we don't have to worry about who the jury "believes". Any resisting arrest is right there on video.

Police officers have an incredibly tough job as it is, and people like you want to decriminalize resisting arrest, so long as the cop doesn't get a fist across his jaw. With all the recent publicity regarding bad outcomes during scuffles with police, you'd think the goal would be to reduce the number of resisting arrest incidents, not normalize it as acceptable.

I see you've at least given up defending the suspended license thing. Maybe you're finally learning why driver's licensing exists in the first place. Better late than never.

[gimmick]

So packing the courts with BS charges is just fine for some random perceived greater good. I mean at least since it doesn't affect any one you know. Cool cool. Not that it's a revelation how much of hypocrite you are.

Drug & Paraphernalia Possession, Minor in Possession of Alcohol, Drinking in Public, Under the Influence of Controlled Substance, Public Intoxication, Loitering and Loitering To Commit Prostitution. Definitely not the type of charges that are very selectively enforced. Clearly it's for the greater good that the public doesn't know if you get charged with any of the above. Who doesn't love a legal system that's vague as fuck.

Oh and this phrase, "You don't need the DA's office informing the criminal population which crimes they can commit and never be prosecuted", is on a whole other level of retardation. Yea let's not tell the population what are the legal ramifications of their actions beforehand. Please defend that.

[gimmick]

I have no idea of the specifics of the parole system in California. But unless it's completely retarded, i would assume that there is never a time when you're not in prison or on parole before you have your drivers license re-instated for every horror driving related incidence you can come up with. And i would assume the violation standards of ones parole are a wee bit stricter than those of LA county DA's.

Now i don't go about with a wall of text about the subject i don't care enough to find out when there already exists people on this forum that know far more than i or you could find out about the subject in the next week. That obviously doesn't stop you, but i don't personally feel like wasting time with it.

[gimmick]

Ok i lied, i spent 5 minutes googling crap...

Other frequently-imposed conditions of misdemeanor probation include:

– Payment of fines and/or restitution to the victim or victims
– Participation in group or individual counseling and treatment
– Community service
– Seeking and obtaining steady employment
– Abstinence from drugs and alcohol after a DUI or drug crime conviction
– Avoidance of contact with criminal acquaintances
– Adherence to all laws; no new arrests or charges while serving probation

...that's the least severe form of punishment after reasonable fines. The bolded part is the difference between not charging and decriminalization.

[MumblesBadly]

Druff- no mention or weapons charges? I question all firearms laws stay intact?

Add- NOW is the time to be armed if you live in LA County.

Druff, you need to man up and listen to desertrunner here to protect yourself and your family. Meaning, apply for a concealed carry license and start EDCing ASAP.

[gimmick]

For all the things i "overlooked" this is the context...





...rough California numbers from few years ago (don't worry it doesn't look any better now).

The first image is annual costs without legal part of the costs. The second image shows how you've been dealing with the strain to the system ever since the 90s.

Your prisons, jails and courts are already packed. The shitshow that is California penitentiary system is just plagued with recidivism and multigenerational issues. You also have an amazing ability to sentence people for x years and have them serve x+ years for infractions based on basic survival. Fun idiosyncrasies of west coast prison culture and the race car/card -system, if you want to walk the yard. You're expected to fight with the people you run with and quite a few other things especially if you have a short sentence.

[gimmick]

Here's a reasonable individual by Cali prison standards...



...that's the bar.

[gimmick]

Can't see too much life for this thread, but a random Simon Rex interview of the above individual...



...i'm sure Simon Rex is a C-list celebrity for some other reason, but here is why i recognize the name...

[gimmick]

Say hello to euro times, if for some reason you're interested in prison related Youtube channels, for all your split wigging needs there's this...



...mildly related to white experience in Cali, and my favorite...



...for some reason i followed him when he was at 10k subs. Generally jovial guy that didn't do too much dirt inside or outside. Easier on the east coast and he had a tradable/valuable skill inside. He did tattoos. Essentially a crime worth an infraction everyday he did time. He weaved through system by staying in the good grace of the inmates without adding too many years to his sentence. Can't be highlighted enough how much easier it's in the east than it's in the west.

[JoeD]

After Gascón assisted in turning San Francisco into the current shithole that it is, I am hopeful that he will in short time discover that LA County is much larger and more diverse.


George Gascón - Wikipedia

San Francisco District Attorney
In 2011, in his last act as Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom appointed Gascón as San Francisco District Attorney, filling the seat vacated by Kamala Harris. In 2018, Gascón announced that he would not be seeking re-election, citing his need to care for his mother in Los Angeles. He resigned from his San Francisco District Attorney position in October 2019.
Gascón advocated for the end of monetary bail.

I was born and raised in LA County and I fully support his immediate recall.

[desertrunner]

Druff- no mention or weapons charges? I question all firearms laws stay intact?

Add- NOW is the time to be armed if you live in LA County.

Druff, you need to man up and listen to desertrunner here to protect yourself and your family. Meaning, apply for a concealed carry license and start EDCing ASAP.

I would like to see Druff become an icon in the 2A community. I would like to see him do in the the 2A areas what he's done for poker. Druff would be an asset to the 2A movement and also be a good firearms instructor. I really think he would find success and enjoy it.

Right now, I think the best pistol for him or anyone would be a Glock 19, Gen 3.

Now is the time for anyone to get armed, things keep getting worse every week.

[gut]

All small business owners must love this lol.

So now the guy who owns the 7-11 can't do anything about a group of assholes hanging outside the front door hassling customers?

[Dan Druff]

I have no idea of the specifics of the parole system in California. But unless it's completely retarded, i would assume that there is never a time when you're not in prison or on parole before you have your drivers license re-instated for every horror driving related incidence you can come up with. And i would assume the violation standards of ones parole are a wee bit stricter than those of LA county DA's.

Now i don't go about with a wall of text about the subject i don't care enough to find out when there already exists people on this forum that know far more than i or you could find out about the subject in the next week. That obviously doesn't stop you, but i don't personally feel like wasting time with it.

WTF is this babble?

Do you not understand that people get licenses suspended all the time for a series of multiple infractions which don't rise to the level of misdemeanor? For example, let's say I was ticketed for speeding 5 times in the month of December 2020. I would get my license suspended. I would not be facing any criminal charges.

The license suspension is basically saying, "Based upon your recent driving record, it's not safe for you to be on the road at this time." This is something being done for the public good.

If there is no consequence to driving on a suspended license, I can simply ignore this and drive anyway. In fact, even if pulled over for committing yet ANOTHER violation, I still wouldn't be charged, as long as it wasn't "substantially similar" to why I previously got suspended!

So basically this policy makes license suspension meaningless, and doesn't take action until someone with a suspended license actually hurts someone.

Why have a licensing system at all then? (Keep in mind that Gascon's plans also call not to prosecute for driving WITHOUT a license, as well! LOL!)

I can't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding why driving on a suspended license needs to have a consequence in all circumstances, but I also know how you love to be a babbling contrarian for the sake of being a babbling contrarian, so it doesn't surprise me.

[gimmick]

All small business owners must love this lol.

So now the guy who owns the 7-11 can't do anything about a group of assholes hanging outside the front door hassling customers?

They can do exactly same as they did before. Police might pick up their call and do something about it.

For the first time, if loitering is their only offence they don't waste courts time too much and the second time in 24 months they might get a fine. Everything related to cops stays the same.

Now there is a case for super crafty loiterers that are willing to dedicate more than 2 years of their time to shuffling several locations and then returning to previous scenes of the crime exactly 2 years later to loiter again, but seriously who the fuck does that?

Loitering – Penal Code § 647(b),(c), (d), (e)

a. Exceptions or Factors For Consideration
i. Repeat offenses over the preceding 24 months involving substantially
similar behavior to that charged

[desertrunner]

This story will be good live on the radio show.

[gimmick]

I have no idea of the specifics of the parole system in California. But unless it's completely retarded, i would assume that there is never a time when you're not in prison or on parole before you have your drivers license re-instated for every horror driving related incidence you can come up with. And i would assume the violation standards of ones parole are a wee bit stricter than those of LA county DA's.

Now i don't go about with a wall of text about the subject i don't care enough to find out when there already exists people on this forum that know far more than i or you could find out about the subject in the next week. That obviously doesn't stop you, but i don't personally feel like wasting time with it.

WTF is this babble?

Do you not understand that people get licenses suspended all the time for a series of multiple infractions which don't rise to the level of misdemeanor? For example, let's say I was ticketed for speeding 5 times in the month of December 2020. I would get my license suspended. I would not be facing any criminal charges.

The license suspension is basically saying, "Based upon your recent driving record, it's not safe for you to be on the road at this time." This is something being done for the public good.

If there is no consequence to driving on a suspended license, I can simply ignore this and drive anyway. In fact, even if pulled over for committing yet ANOTHER violation, I still wouldn't be charged, as long as it wasn't "substantially similar" to why I previously got suspended!

So basically this policy makes license suspension meaningless, and doesn't take action until someone with a suspended license actually hurts someone.

Why have a licensing system at all then? (Keep in mind that Gascon's plans also call not to prosecute for driving WITHOUT a license, as well! LOL!)

I can't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding why driving on a suspended license needs to have a consequence in all circumstances, but I also know how you love to be a babbling contrarian for the sake of being a babbling contrarian, so it doesn't surprise me.

Oh my bad i didn't fully understand that you're worried about people going over the limit for 10mph enough to lose their license and then getting away driving once without a license in a 2 year span.

I mean fuck DUIs or endangering the public. It's those 10mph violations that you rack 20+ on every holiday trip you've ever taken.

Is there anything more worthless you've like to cry about.