FBI agent arrested for firing at officer enters plea deal
- Thread starter Schattenreiter
- Start date
- Replies 78
- Views 1,323
J R Green;n98616 said:
The existence of plea-bargaining is the obnoxious element that makes people suspect that one element of government is giving preferential treatment to a member of another element of government.
R
Rode Hard and Put Up Wet
Guest
J R Green;n99683 said:
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
gc70;n99686 said:
Plea bargaining exists for every person involved in the criminal justice system. How is it considered preferential treatment when LEO's reap the same benefits as every one else?
Denying them would be the opposite of preferential treatment.
Rode Hard and Put Up Wet;n99691 said:
Your argument is with the english language.
o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"synonyms: belief, judgment, thought(s), (way of) thinking, mind, (point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint; More - the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
"the changing climate of opinion" - an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.
"I had a higher opinion of myself than I deserved"
- the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
I feel like LEO preferential treatment depends
on the circumstances of what crime was commited as well as how much media attention is attracted. Some LEOs get fired relatively quickly and charged (Slager, Charleston, SC), and I'm sure there are others who's infractions are swept under the rug and handled in-house
on the circumstances of what crime was commited as well as how much media attention is attracted. Some LEOs get fired relatively quickly and charged (Slager, Charleston, SC), and I'm sure there are others who's infractions are swept under the rug and handled in-house
gc70;n100044 said:
I understood you, a Government body extending the same courtesy to a member of another Government body that they give to the citizenry is somehow "preferential".
if I'm confused, explain what you meant so that I may understand you better.
Last edited by a moderator:
J R Green;n100135 said:
A "courtesy" given by a government body to a member of another government body will always be subject to being perceived as preferential, just as hiring a relative will always be subject to being perceived as nepotism.
However, the problem is not the perception that the plea bargain is preferential, but that any plea bargains exist and they are all fundamentally unfair and unequal.
gc70;n100142 said:
Well there's a whole other can of worms. Do you think the nation could afford to try every case to the fullest with jury trials and days to weeks spent on each and every case? In district court in mid size counties the daily docket can easily be 500 cases maybe a hundred of those being felonies that would have to go into superior court. In those mid size counties the superior courts only actually try a half dozen cases a year, what if every one of those cases had to be tried?
Plea bargains are available to all comers who are willing to avail themselves which is the epitome of equal.
As I implied earlier we don't live in shoulda land and Fair is where you ride the Ferris wheel and eat funnel cakes.
Plea bargaining as they exists from the 70's to current is because the government is to lazy to do the work required to get a conviction.
AR10ShooterinNC;n100174 said:
Well yes and no. there is no real answer to when it started because of common law but it seems in 1680 sir Mathew Hale was one of the first written pleas and he received great favor In the law for the plea. So perhaps this goes back further than you even imagine. Pleas have pretty much been a staple of the American court system even if called different things through the years. And yes almost always it is easier to allow a plea than to have investigators tied up on a case. Remember there are a number of crimes that you have to prove intent so it's not as simple as what happened.
J R Green;n100168 said:
Thank you for expressing the proof that the plea bargaining system is a monstrosity that substitutes the arbitrary decisions of prosecutors for any semblance of justice.
gc70;n100427 said:
It's really not arbitrary, they only try the cases that won't plead out or high profile capital cases... that wont plead out. Bottom line the plea bargain is the standard for all criminal cases.
Monstrosity... you bet. The alternative would triple your tax rate.
gc70;n100427 said:
Ever see the movie "Law Abiding Citizen"?
Gerard Butler's character was frustrated with the DA who was only concerned about his conviction rate and not actual justice being served to perpetrators.
J R Green;n100428 said:
It is arbitrary when prosecutors have the discretion to decide whether an act is anything from capital felony loogie hocking down to the infraction of spitting on the sidewalk.
J R Green;n100428 said:
It is sad to try to justify something that is wrong by claiming that it would require some effort to fix.
Plea bargaining is a monstrosity that exists for at least two reasons totally unrelated to the concept of justice. One reason, alluded to above, is that it allows prosecutors to control the vast majority of their conviction rate statistics. Another reason is that it is convenient for politicians and comforting to the public to have grossly inflated theoretical punishments for many or most crimes.
Errant_Venture
I'm the space cowboy.
Well. We're certainly good at throwing out unqualified facts here. I mean, I could point to an awful lot on both sides, but I'll be lazy, and look to the most recent one: "It's better than anyone else's [system]." How? In what regard? What facts or studies prove the efficacy of it? Does our current state as having the worlds largest population of imprisoned persons not detract from this statement in some major regard?
While I"m aware I'm nitpicking, it just seems like were throwing out an awful lot of unqualified statements, then pointing fingers at other people for doing so. I mean, I do it all the time, but I'll fess up to it at least a good portion of the time if I realize it.
While I"m aware I'm nitpicking, it just seems like were throwing out an awful lot of unqualified statements, then pointing fingers at other people for doing so. I mean, I do it all the time, but I'll fess up to it at least a good portion of the time if I realize it.
Errant_Venture;n100841 said:
I admit that was an opinion but can you point to a better legal system? Some systems with low prison populations end up with a bullet to the back of the head sans appeal or the loss of limbs for minor offenses , some others you are shoved into a cell without food and if you don't have someone who cares enough to come and feed you, too bad. Some you are guilty until proven innocent, in some your defense lawyer serves at the will of the court.
Whose system would you have us adopt?
Cowboy;n100911 said:
How about China?
http://www.swindlelaw.com/2012/12/the-worst-legal-system-on-earth/
J R Green;n100831 said:
In the first sentence you say you are "explaining but not justifying". In the second sentence you justify it as "better then everyone elses".
Then you go on justifying it in two more posts.
Hehe. Interesting. Since it's better than China, and we don't get our hands chopped off, it's good enough. Okery dokey.
NKD;n100963 said:
Is your life perfect? Job?, family?, home life, none of your possessions operate below 100% efficiency? If not are you ready to chuck them all for the great nothing to replace them?
I'm putting you in charge for a while, how are you going to fix it? Keep in mind you have to pay for it too.
Okay... begin.
J R Green;n101050 said:
I have no idea what would make you think my words claim any of those things?
Literally the strangest interpretation of a post I have seen in quite some time. And, I have a feeling the name calling is coming right around the corner......
J R Green;n100428 said:
And in hearin lies the problem. I'm not going to bother with trying to justify it with links on the Internet as it would be logically pointless to do so, but there have been plenty of articles published regarding how the system is designed, sone round say rigged, to encourage people who are not in the wrong to plead guilty to some thing they're not guilty of because it is better than the unaffordable alternative.
Lets be honest here. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system and I don't for one don't agree with it or support that. It's a corrupt and bloated bureaucracy designed to steamroll the citizens.
Saying it's better than your country of choice does not excuse this or make it ok. More and more I find myself look into forward to the day that the system burns eith all hands on deck. I'll bring gasoline and hot dogs to that funeral pyre. Am I biased against the system from soup to nuts? You're damned right I am.
Last edited by a moderator:
J R Green;n101100 said:
Believe me, If I thought they it were remotely possible to fix the system I would advocate for doing so. Alas, I think it's beyond repair.
noway2;n101115 said:
What after your big reset? What then? Are we going back to living in caves? Are we going to sustain 300 million people as hunter gatherers? Have you read One Second After?
You are willing to send us all to Hell because you don't like living on earth.
Contrary to what you might believe, survival doesn't go to the fittest, or to the smartest, it goes to the ones who can adapt the best.
Errant_Venture
I'm the space cowboy.
J R Green;n100900 said:
In all honesty, and with some due consideration, I think our system, in it's foundations, is quite sound. My issue isn't with "what system is better." It was with assertions of opinion as fact. Honestly, I simply think we've gotten away from those foundations. A simple example would be the cost of executions. What do you think our founding fathers would have said if we told them the cost it takes us to have a proven mass murderer executed?
Additionally, this whole discussion is a great commentary on our justice system. A lot of people here seem to believe the police and federal agents are given preferential treatment. I happen to be one of them, based upon research, experience, and anecdotal evidence from the legal cases my father has been involved in during my lifetime.
We were a country formed from a rebellion against authority that strove to take away our basic human rights, and our representation within the government as a whole. It strikes me as sad, that we have come so far, only to have lost our innate suspicion of authority and it's tendency to seek greater control beyond that which allows freedom for those it protects.
I don't claim to be right, and much of this is personal opinion. However, I'm rather fond of my own opinion, so take it with a few grains of salt.
Last edited by a moderator:
BudE;n101185 said:
He's probably not too thrilled. You bring up an excellent point that hasn't been covered yet. Cops quickly learn the reality of the system but when you work sweat and sometimes bleed to put a case together and the bad guy gets 6 felonies dismissed because he plead out to 1 misdemeanor they too walk away with a sour taste in their mouth.
I can say from experience that cops who view themselves as crusaders don't last. This is why the vast majority of cops you see have less than 5 years experience. The cops that survive realize that doing their part of the job for the sake of doing the job right is the key to happiness.
Which brings us to the point I've raised a few times now: dong their job is being the force arm of politicians who have divorced "law" from right and wrong to where large segments of the population view it as illegitimate.
J R Green;n101050 said:
Why are you promoting the false dichotomy of perfection or nothing?
You admit the system is a monstrosity, but you seem convinced it is not worth the time, treasure, or trouble necessary to try to fix it.
BudE;n101245 said:
Sorry for the delay, it was a long day yesterday. Basically. I'm saying that more and more people are rightfully viewing the government as illegitimate and refusing to believe in the idea that it has actual authority. Of course there are the sovereign citizens and the urban dregs but we have an increasing number of every day Joe and Jane citizen expressing similar thoughts. A large part of this, I believe stems from the fact that government is corrupt and is interfering in ways that it must not. In this country alone, it violates its founding principles on a daily basis: domestic spying, confinement without due process, forced purchase of insurance, not to mention all the departments that it doesn't have charter to create, and all the things that it gets involved in thst rightfully belong to the states.
Governmrent, by definition is force. The only justifiable use of force is defensive. Therefore, government is an improper use of force. Taxation is theft. There is no negotiation. It is pure strong armed robbery conducted under the threat of violence. It's enforcers, the police, are little different than street thugs when it comes to "enforcing the "law", which is nothing more than the dictates of corrupt politicians; and put this in the context of the number of "laws" that go beyond the nature of one person harming another and you should see what I mean. We don't need "law" to be good and moral people. We don't need "law" to rightfully defend ourselves.
Except for the fact that many people have been programmed to believe in the righteousness and necessity of having an external authority, I am certain people would flat out reject the notion of being governed because it is illogical. As more people wake up to this fact and the reality of what government is and that it isn't a god thing or even necessary, more people will stand up and say, "I don't recognize your authority". If enough people refuse to believe and participate, it will collapse, even without a violent revolt.
Last edited by a moderator: