Well that's one way to ensure that no criminal gets oppressed in NYC. If they reach peak Democrat and actually disband the DA's office, then nobody is going to jail!
I'm telling you, the Democrats are actually in league with organized crime.
This isn't new. There's no substantive difference between politicians working on behalf of the Genovese's, or working on behalf of Crips.
Yeah, sure, the Warren Court's soft-on-crime stuff ruined the country at the time and was ideologically based. But when Lori Lightfoot comes out saying that cops need to be protected from foot pursuits, that's bullshit. Looting supports the black market for stolen goods that every ghetto has. The distribution of needles supports durg addicts and keeps the drug market flowing. The importation of homeless from other cities increases sales to those same drug dealers.
We also know that the racial identitarians have deep rooted connections to organized crime. From any "La Raza" Latino organizations relationships to the cartels, Black Identiarians ties to the Nation Of Islam & Almighty Black P. Stone Nation. Hell we can even talk about Leftist "Indian Movements" with criminal gangs among natives. They formed political alliances though party-boss systems with Irish gangs, Ukranian gangs, Itanlian gangs, and yes even Jewish gangs.
It isn't about the race, it's about the racialism. It allows for cities to be balkanized ethnic districts that are solidly under the control of a party boss system, where the single identitarian politician is the only person who speaks the language of the people in that community, and is the sole arbiter of power in that community. He, therefore, controls a voting block at the larger scale. This has been the strategy in American cities for over 200 years, it involves Republicans and Democrats (though many of the Republicans were just Tammany Hall... located in NYC).
I'm telling you, they are operating at the behest of street gangs. That is why they are directly attacking the police from behind, so that those communities can be policed by their own local mafia.
If real lawyers quit because of woke bosses, that's a bad thing for real people. If you have a woke boss you probably need to stay as hard as you can to undermine them...
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the prosecutors. I'm sure a some good ones were lost, but plenty of them are garbage.
The new discovery requirements they mention say that evidence has to be turned over to the defense:
Within 15 days if it is a traffic offense or code violation
Within 20 days if the defendant is being kept in jail
Within 35 days if the defendant is free pending charges
The prosecutors can request a 30 day extension if they deem there to be larger amounts of evidence.
Now, the one area I would disagree with it some is that apparently some cases are getting thrown out because of things the prosecution is not using are not getting turned over to the defense. So I think it would be fair for the defense to gather their own evidence and then submit it to the prosecution within the same timeframe. And then the evidence allowed to be used in the trial is the combination of what both gathered. (It makes little sense to me that only one side has to do the legwork). And additionally I can certainly see cases where people (or bureaucracies) would stonewall handing over evidence to the prosecutors thus making it difficult to hit the deadlines.
But the 6th amendment exists for a reason. Keeping someone in jail for months on shaky or trumped up charges (cough Jan 6 cough), or cases like Rittenhouse prove why it is necessary, and frankly that it is not being enforced. The event happened on August 25th, 2020. Rittenhouse was charged on January 5th, 2021 - over four months before he was even told what he was being charged with. The trial itself didn't start until November 1st, 2021 - more than 14 months since the event. There was no valid justification for that delay, other then the prosecutors and DA just trying to punish Kyle extra-judicially.
So, yeah, I'm not crying over prosecutors who say they're being overworked by needing to do their job in a reasonable amount of time.
Why would the defense ever need to proactively gather evidence? Are the DAs looking to prove their clients innocence? The way the system is written, the prosecution is attempting to prove guilt against the party's assumed innocence.
How much evidence could you gather within, say, a week that you didn't commit a murder? I don't have very much evidence of crimes I haven't committed lying around.
If the defense doesn't want to gather any, then it doesn't have to and it certainly wouldn't be going after any potentially harmful evidence. But, getting some basic defense evidence is a lot easier than you seem to make it out to be - I'm assuming you would have an alibi for why you didn't commit a murder and I imagine you could get some evidence supporting the alibi could be fairly easy. Testimony from a friend that you were hanging out, traffic logs from a streaming service or a game service that you were at home watching/playing when the murder happened, GPS data from your phone, whatever. A lawyer could at least request if not get that in a week or two without any issue.
Well that's one way to ensure that no criminal gets oppressed in NYC. If they reach peak Democrat and actually disband the DA's office, then nobody is going to jail!
They're big fans of the movie Escape From New York.
I'm telling you, the Democrats are actually in league with organized crime.
This isn't new. There's no substantive difference between politicians working on behalf of the Genovese's, or working on behalf of Crips.
Yeah, sure, the Warren Court's soft-on-crime stuff ruined the country at the time and was ideologically based. But when Lori Lightfoot comes out saying that cops need to be protected from foot pursuits, that's bullshit. Looting supports the black market for stolen goods that every ghetto has. The distribution of needles supports durg addicts and keeps the drug market flowing. The importation of homeless from other cities increases sales to those same drug dealers.
We also know that the racial identitarians have deep rooted connections to organized crime. From any "La Raza" Latino organizations relationships to the cartels, Black Identiarians ties to the Nation Of Islam & Almighty Black P. Stone Nation. Hell we can even talk about Leftist "Indian Movements" with criminal gangs among natives. They formed political alliances though party-boss systems with Irish gangs, Ukranian gangs, Itanlian gangs, and yes even Jewish gangs.
It isn't about the race, it's about the racialism. It allows for cities to be balkanized ethnic districts that are solidly under the control of a party boss system, where the single identitarian politician is the only person who speaks the language of the people in that community, and is the sole arbiter of power in that community. He, therefore, controls a voting block at the larger scale. This has been the strategy in American cities for over 200 years, it involves Republicans and Democrats (though many of the Republicans were just Tammany Hall... located in NYC).
I'm telling you, they are operating at the behest of street gangs. That is why they are directly attacking the police from behind, so that those communities can be policed by their own local mafia.
Well, that system does provide a measure of electoral certainty, if you've got the lack of moral fortitude necessary to benefit from it.
So, then it's a virtual certainty.
Finally there will be no punishment for bearing arms in accordance with the Second Amendment.
Oh, what's that? That's the one law they will enforce? What a surprise.
If real lawyers quit because of woke bosses, that's a bad thing for real people. If you have a woke boss you probably need to stay as hard as you can to undermine them...
Quitting because of systemic Wokeness is basically the dynamic that lead to current situation of whole fields being nothing but Wokists.
At this point, it's not that they've won, it's just that so much ground has been flat out ceded.
The enemy is well past the gates.
The ones quitting are the ones that prosecute crimes against holy blacks and fags.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the prosecutors. I'm sure a some good ones were lost, but plenty of them are garbage.
The new discovery requirements they mention say that evidence has to be turned over to the defense:
Within 15 days if it is a traffic offense or code violation
Within 20 days if the defendant is being kept in jail
Within 35 days if the defendant is free pending charges
The prosecutors can request a 30 day extension if they deem there to be larger amounts of evidence.
Now, the one area I would disagree with it some is that apparently some cases are getting thrown out because of things the prosecution is not using are not getting turned over to the defense. So I think it would be fair for the defense to gather their own evidence and then submit it to the prosecution within the same timeframe. And then the evidence allowed to be used in the trial is the combination of what both gathered. (It makes little sense to me that only one side has to do the legwork). And additionally I can certainly see cases where people (or bureaucracies) would stonewall handing over evidence to the prosecutors thus making it difficult to hit the deadlines.
But the 6th amendment exists for a reason. Keeping someone in jail for months on shaky or trumped up charges (cough Jan 6 cough), or cases like Rittenhouse prove why it is necessary, and frankly that it is not being enforced. The event happened on August 25th, 2020. Rittenhouse was charged on January 5th, 2021 - over four months before he was even told what he was being charged with. The trial itself didn't start until November 1st, 2021 - more than 14 months since the event. There was no valid justification for that delay, other then the prosecutors and DA just trying to punish Kyle extra-judicially.
So, yeah, I'm not crying over prosecutors who say they're being overworked by needing to do their job in a reasonable amount of time.
Why would the defense ever need to proactively gather evidence? Are the DAs looking to prove their clients innocence? The way the system is written, the prosecution is attempting to prove guilt against the party's assumed innocence.
How much evidence could you gather within, say, a week that you didn't commit a murder? I don't have very much evidence of crimes I haven't committed lying around.
If the defense doesn't want to gather any, then it doesn't have to and it certainly wouldn't be going after any potentially harmful evidence. But, getting some basic defense evidence is a lot easier than you seem to make it out to be - I'm assuming you would have an alibi for why you didn't commit a murder and I imagine you could get some evidence supporting the alibi could be fairly easy. Testimony from a friend that you were hanging out, traffic logs from a streaming service or a game service that you were at home watching/playing when the murder happened, GPS data from your phone, whatever. A lawyer could at least request if not get that in a week or two without any issue.
Fair enough