What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Are district attorneys just lazy? (1 Viewer)

I would imagine ( though I don’t know) that they’re understaffed, without enough money, that we have too many laws that demand incarceration, and that every time the public is asked to be taxed more in order to give these folks the funds they need, it’s declined. 

That would be my guess but I don’t know. 

 
Are the more serious crimes in LA taking up all their time?

There were a couple on that list I don't mind if they stop prosecuting. Couple I'm hard against as well.

 
Note that there are all kinds of exemptions for things like repeat offenders, verifiable safety risk posed due to the trespassing, physical force used in the resisting of arrest, etc

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Note there are exceptions to the exceptions. 
You mean prosecutors have discretion over the cases they pursue? I really don’t see a big deal in this at all and it pretty much allows for the normal prosecution of crimes that involve physical danger, physical aggression and habitual offenders.

 
You mean prosecutors have discretion over the cases they pursue? I really don’t see a big deal in this at all and it pretty much allows for the normal prosecution of crimes that involve physical danger, physical aggression and habitual offenders.
Habitual offenders that arent mentally ill or homeless since those are exceptions of course. 

 
Habitual offenders that arent mentally ill or homeless since those are exceptions of course. 
Or they are just factors for consideration. It doesn’t mean someone with a substance abuse problem can just trespass repeatedly without ever having any consequence.

 
Prostitution, driving without a license, drug possession, drinking in public, etc. shouldn't be criminal offenses in the first place.  It would be best if the county just repealed their laws related to these sorts of bull#### offenses, but a good second-best option is for prosecutors to apply their discretion and ignore them in most cases.

 
Prostitution, driving without a license, drug possession, drinking in public, etc. shouldn't be criminal offenses in the first place.  It would be best if the county just repealed their laws related to these sorts of bull#### offenses, but a good second-best option is for prosecutors to apply their discretion and ignore them in most cases.
That's pretty much what was happening in Colorado before we got to vote on legalizing marijuana. The courts and law enforcement just quit caring about marijuana. 

 
It will decrease the overall incarceration rate during a pandemic, which is a good thing.  Charges for trespassing, disturbing the peace, and resisting/obstructing officers often involve the mentally ill, who need treatment over incarceration.  Finally, prosecution for violations of these laws disproportionally affects poor people, as they are less likely to afford bond and will remain incarcerated on these petty charges. 

Shifting the focus away from incarceration and punishment and towards treatment and diversion for these low level crimes makes sense, but one has to wonder if there will be a corresponding reduction in staffing.  in other words, will the 5 Deputy DAs responsible for prosecuting these crimes become obsolete?     

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
None of those things should be dealt with through the criminal justice system in most cases.

Take driving without a license. That should be a civil fine, same as a traffic ticket. Do we really want to have a jury trial about it?
That would be awesome.  Totally worth a $135 fine+court costs, for the audience.

 
So does that mean if somebody trespasses on my property I can legally shoot them? Since I won't be getting any help from the police? 

Or maybe at least just give them a good butt kicking As I throw them off my property? I won't be held legally liable, correct?

If the police and DA won't do anything about it, then this is what happens when you let citizens take care of problems themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So does that mean if somebody trespasses on my property I can legally shoot them?
No.

Since I won't be getting any help from the police?
Why wouldn't you get help from the police? Just because the police will come and force him off of your property without criminally charging him (unless he resists) doesn't mean you can shoot someone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mookie said:
It will decrease the overall incarceration rate during a pandemic, which is a good thing.  Charges for trespassing, disturbing the peace, and resisting/obstructing officers often involve the mentally ill, who need treatment over incarceration.  Finally, prosecution for violations of these laws disproportionally affects poor people, as they are less likely to afford bond and will remain incarcerated on these petty charges. 

Shifting the focus away from incarceration and punishment and towards treatment and diversion for these low level crimes makes sense, but one has to wonder if there will be a corresponding reduction in staffing.  in other words, will the 5 Deputy DAs responsible for prosecuting these crimes become obsolete?     
Resisting arrest isnt just a mentally ill thing. And it will be even less of a mentally ill thing now. 

 
No.

Why wouldn't you get help from the police? Just because the police will come and force him off of your property without criminally charging him (unless he resists) doesn't mean you can shoot someone.
I mean, if the guy keeps trespassing on my property because they keep letting him go, then I would be FORCED to take action in my own hands.  I pay for the police and prosecuters to keep me safe.  If they explicitly refuse to do so, then that leaves the citizens themselves to enforce the law.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean, if the guy keeps trespassing on my property because they keep letting him go, then I would be FORCED to take action in my own hands.  I pay for the police and prosecuters to keep me safe.  If they explicitly refuse to do so, then that leaves the citizens themselves to enforce the law.
This will only happen if he is crazy or homeless. Luckily those guys never go back to the same place again. Ever. 

 
I had a problem with trespassers six weeks or so ago -- for some reason, a bunch of kids thought it would be funny to ring my doorbell after sundown.  Since my local DA won't prosecute trespassing, I did what any reasonable adult would do: I jury-rigged my wiring to deliver a high-voltage shock to anybody touching the doorbell.  That seems to have solved the problem.  Since November 1, no kids have pestered me.  YMMV.

 
I had a problem with trespassers six weeks or so ago -- for some reason, a bunch of kids thought it would be funny to ring my doorbell after sundown.  Since my local DA won't prosecute trespassing, I did what any reasonable adult would do: I jury-rigged my wiring to deliver a high-voltage shock to anybody touching the doorbell.  That seems to have solved the problem.  Since November 1, no kids have pestered me.  YMMV.
"...coincidentally during that time I have also not received any of the packages that I've ordered. strange."

 
So does that mean if somebody trespasses on my property I can legally shoot them? Since I won't be getting any help from the police? 


Massad Ayoob "Judicious Use Of Deadly Force"

402,503 views •May 13, 2015

In this video, police Captain Massad Ayoob, generally recognized as the leading authority on use of deadly weapons in civilian self-defense, goes beyond his book In The Gravest Extreme to deal from the ground up in the core principles of law, ethics and tactics of using lethal force. It addresses the legal ramifications you will face if you use a weapon on another human being. If you plan to carry a lethal force instrument for self-defense or train in a weapons based system, this video is a must see. Unfortunately, most of the legal information that is being dispensed by instructors claiming to teach "self-defense" is not only wrong, but dead wrong. The taking of another human's life is only legally and ethically justified under a very specific set of circumstances. And those standards -- not your fear or what you instructor told you -- will be used to hold you accountable. It is not going to be your instructor facing prison time, it is you. This is why it is important for you to know this information before you find yourself in a situation where you might have to use your training.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j4PS_8R5IE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDXLv2mMNKQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA5_pdmBI2E

*****

I would watch Massad Ayoob to get a full range of considerations/complications in terms of using a firearm in self defense. His main video is outdated by time, but lots of the information on what to consider will always be relevant.

Long story short,

1) If you are in a high crime area/distressed area in general, the best answer is always to move, if you can. ( I recognize some people can't move)

2) If you can't move, get an appropriate dog. Dogs are good company, good for morale, loyal and trespassers don't do well with the right type of dog on your side. Consider there are legal considerations/complications here as well, but dogs operate as a good deterrent in many ways.

3) People don't like light and noise when they are up to no good. Placing visible cameras, dummy cameras, motion controlled lights and clearing your immediate area ( make it neat, well maintained, and give intruders no place to hide on the exterior) is another step to use.

4) Firearms should only, ideally, be deployed by those who train exhaustively with them. Obviously not every situation is ideal.

I am not hard on opposed to use of firearms in self defense, but I am hard on about being exhaustive about understanding the full legality, complications, trade offs, considerations, etc, etc issues before one goes down this road.

For example, I don't agree with Kyle Rittenhouse. He's a minor and went to another state and went out in situation he could have avoided. It wasn't his family or his family business at risk. Now he's facing major prison time possibly and who is going to take care of his single mom  and IIRC two sisters?  I don't agree with guys who open carry an AR15 in a diner to prove a point. I don't agree with unneeded confrontation to test the limits of 2A rights.

Gun owners should be above reproach examples at all times. This is how you win heart and minds for those who oppose gun owners. But, if you are pushed to the point of no other option, then flip that #### like you were in a John Wick deleted scene. But you gotta work to put yourself in positions to have lots of better options first. The goal of every gun owner is to be a gentleman warrior.

I will admit that it's hard to be a gentleman warrior in a world full of woke lefty soft serve mouth breathing manlets with leaking manginas who remain perpetually jilted because they forgot to change their tampon this morning. The kind of twice used smegma freak shows that celebrate a hard day of Aqua Zumba by sipping mineral water out of a wine glass to feel empowered. And yes, the highway is still full of broken heroes looking for a last chance power drive.  But even despite that, it's a duty to yourself and the people you have an obligation towards to be exactly that gentleman warrior.

 
I mean, if the guy keeps trespassing on my property because they keep letting him go, then I would be FORCED to take action in my own hands.  I pay for the police and prosecuters to keep me safe.  If they explicitly refuse to do so, then that leaves the citizens themselves to enforce the law.
What are your thoughts on trespassing our nation's capitol building? 

 
If I were lost, I wouldn't be finding things that make you out to be a hypocrite now would I?  
Except I'm not.  I made myself very clear where I stand on this.

Try reading all of the posts instead of trying to win at "gotcha!".  You ain't winning - you're losing bigly.

 
Losing bigly......like Trump?  
You keep hanging on trying to "Get BladeRunner!", but you ain't gonna' get him no matter how hard you try.  Strawmen don't work on me.

It's like you don't want the truth - you just want your truth.  I've explained it to you already.  If you don't want to listen and just put up strawmen all day long, fine. But you can do it by yourself.  :bye:

 
You keep hanging on trying to "Get BladeRunner!", but you ain't gonna' get him no matter how hard you try.  Strawmen don't work on me.

It's like you don't want the truth - you just want your truth.  I've explained it to you already.  If you don't want to listen and just put up strawmen all day long, fine. But you can do it by yourself.  :bye:
I already got what I needed.  

 
Not sure where to ask this.  

Kyle Rittenhouse has been seen in public with alt-right terrorist and treasonous group members and flashing white power and nazi signs.  Can the prosecutor use these against him?  Don't remember what all he was charged with.  Curious if these can be used to support a notion he didn't go to Kenosha to protect and defend, he went there to commit hate crimes.  

 
Accurate but not helpful answer is it depends on the relevance of the evidence to the element(s) of the charged offenses. 

If convicted for what I imagine he's charged with, it's almost certainly in play for sentencing.  

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Not sure where to ask this.  

Kyle Rittenhouse has been seen in public with alt-right terrorist and treasonous group members and flashing white power and nazi signs.  Can the prosecutor use these against him?  Don't remember what all he was charged with.  Curious if these can be used to support a notion he didn't go to Kenosha to protect and defend, he went there to commit hate crimes.  
I doubt any of that stuff matters to the underlying charges, which are homicide and unlawful possession of a gun.  I think the prosecutors are going to try to have some additional conditions placed on his bail terms.  I think the main issue in his trial will be self defense - what it means and how the court will interpret the defense under these unique circumstances.

 
Not sure where to ask this.  

Kyle Rittenhouse has been seen in public with alt-right terrorist and treasonous group members and flashing white power and nazi signs.  Can the prosecutor use these against him?  Don't remember what all he was charged with.  Curious if these can be used to support a notion he didn't go to Kenosha to protect and defend, he went there to commit hate crimes.  
Well speak of the devil...

Prosecutors seek to modify Kyle Rittenhouse's bond agreement after they say he displayed racist signs

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ha, your link beat me to my input. Like CM said above the subsequent actions likely won't come into play in trial (unless it would be to impeach some dumb blanket statement that the defendant makes in his testimony such as, "I've never done anything to suggest I'm racist"). 

However, these subsequent facts could impact things like the state's willingness to resolve via a plea bargain, his release conditions, and, possibly, they could be aggravating factors the court could consider at sentencing. 

Assuming what's alleged by the prosecutors and the article posted is true, Rittenhouse is probably not listening to his lawyer. And if I were his lawyer I'd tackle him. 

 
I would imagine ( though I don’t know) that they’re understaffed, without enough money, that we have too many laws that demand incarceration, and that every time the public is asked to be taxed more in order to give these folks the funds they need, it’s declined. 

That would be my guess but I don’t know. 
This is true.  I have known 2 DAs who were both prosecuters in Detroit.    The cases they take or don`t take depend on how much publicity the case has been given, the chances of winning the case, and if the case will hurt them in the long run.  Then what the cost of a prolonged trial will be.

If you think these attorneys hate each other like on TV you are wrong.    Maybe a couple do here and there but for the most part they all belong to the same clubs, they drink together.  That is why so many cases never even go to trial.   "Hey Robert..you know dam well this is going to be a protracted trial that is going to cost a ton of money with no sure conviction in sight, my client will plead guilty to lower charges and maybe do a short time in jail or even get probation, deal?  deal!"

Familes who have been wronged will complain but unless it is high profile nobody cares. These types of cases happen everday in all parts of the country.

 
This is true.  I have known 2 DAs who were both prosecuters in Detroit.    The cases they take or don`t take depend on how much publicity the case has been given, the chances of winning the case, and if the case will hurt them in the long run.  Then what the cost of a prolonged trial will be.

If you think these attorneys hate each other like on TV you are wrong.    Maybe a couple do here and there but for the most part they all belong to the same clubs, they drink together.  That is why so many cases never even go to trial.   "Hey Robert..you know dam well this is going to be a protracted trial that is going to cost a ton of money with no sure conviction in sight, my client will plead guilty to lower charges and maybe do a short time in jail or even get probation, deal?  deal!"

Familes who have been wronged will complain but unless it is high profile nobody cares. These types of cases happen everday in all parts of the country.
Bull####. 

So many disgustingly inaccurate parts of this post. I think the only part you're correct about is the part about attorneys not hating each other. But not hating each other isn't at all why so many cases settle and the suggestion it's because we "drink together" is cartoonishly stupid. 

 
This upcoming election is going to be a bloodbath for Democrats.  And they deserve it.  Their anti-police and soft on crime policies have predictably been disastrous.  These people have no business being in power.

 
This upcoming election is going to be a bloodbath for Democrats.  And they deserve it.  Their anti-police and soft on crime policies have predictably been disastrous.  These people have no business being in power.
So your prediction is a bunch of blue cities are going red?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top