This is a single symptom of a larger issue, namely an excess of laws to the point that any law can be arbitrarily used to prosecute you if you are of an unwanted class, race, etc. Add on top the police quota system and you have a recipe of this type of injustice that runs the gamut, from antiquidated knife laws to the drug war. To me, this is largely a result of lawyers fucking ruining everything they touch, and then…
Lawyers aren’t the ones who propose the laws, or write them, or vote on them. Professionally, lawyers are the ones who represent people in disputes. Arrogant jackasses like you are what give techies a bad name.
Could you please not include personal attacks in your comments?
Lawyers aren’t the ones who propose the laws, or write them, or vote on them. Professionally, lawyers are the ones who represent people in disputes. Arrogant jackasses like you are what give techies a bad name.
>Lawyers aren’t the ones who propose the laws https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44762.pdf (page 2 shows 218 lawyers in congress) http://library.clerk.house.gov/documents/Lawyers.pdf >or write them Congress doesn't really write laws. K-street (lawyers) tend to write them in conjuction with congress (lawyers) staff helping. >vote on them. See above two links. Please now clarify how I give techies a bad name?
Congress has specialized, non-partisan staff called legislative counsel. They will take instruction from Congressional personal staff and committee staff and create drafts of legislation. At times, if the Congressional staff choose, outside counsel (K-Street) can be involved in this process. They can provide "model legislation" at the beginning of the process or suggested revisions. This can be very helpful because the K-street counsel is, at times, more expert on various highly technical aspects of the law. It can also speed up getting the bill into a finished place where it can be introduced. There's nothing particularly nefarious about this process, although well-funded, well-connected interests can get bills drafted sooner. But to be clear, Congressional political staff (who may or may not be lawyers) are in charge of the drafting process. Congress writes the laws.
Most weapon bans are pretty silly and arbitrary. Look at the old AWB... Flash hider? Banned.. Muzzle Break? ok... Bayonet Lug? Banned... Grenade launcher oh sorry I mean “flaregun attachment” is ok as long as you can’t fix a bayonet on it...
"Flash hider? Banned.. Muzzle Break? ok" In all fairness, muzzle breaks have practical civilian use as a way to reduce recoil for target shooting, while flash hiders just make it difficult for authorities to spot the location of a shooter. Muzzle breaks actually increase the noise level of a firearm, making more detectable than a stock barrel.
Flash hiders don't actually make gunshots harder to spot, the change the direction of the flash away from the shooter line of sight allowing the gun to be used in low light conditions without blinding oneself, and in modern days allow you to use nightvision devices.
Muzzle breaks don't make a gun louder, the make it louder at the muzzle which is why some ranges don't like them.
Muzzle breaks don't reduce recoil they reduce muzzle rise which is only really useful for follow up shots.
I'm not American, but I don't understand, how did this man get those 6 years added in a tribunal? Did he go to court? I mean what kind of legal people put this guy in jail for that? I mean did anybody blink on it? Sure the law is a problem, but I don't see what motivations the justice system can have to apply the law like that, can somebody explain it to me?
>I don't see what motivations the justice system can have to apply the law like that, can somebody explain it to me?
They're chasing statistics to make themselves and their departments look better.
If you can't measure the important things, the important things become what you can measure.
I'm not American, but I don't understand, how did this man get those 6 years added in a tribunal? Did he go to court? I mean what kind of legal people put this guy in jail for that? I mean did anybody blink on it? Sure the law is a problem, but I don't see what motivations the justice system can have to apply the law like that, can somebody explain it to me?
It's difficult to tell from the article. Unfortunately in the USA the poor don't have the same ability to defend themselves as the rich, and it often skews along racial lines. We also have repeat offender laws that can catch up reformed criminals as well as repeat ones.
I would say most of the middle class doesn't have the ability to legally defend themselves either. They might be able to, but it's financially catastrophic. You can pay a lawyer to plea for you, but if it goes to trial, it could be in the 10s of thousands. It all depends on how long the prosecutor can draw out the trial. Also keep in mind while this is going on, you've probably been fired, so you don't have any income to pay for it, so it depends on how much you have saved. (You probably won't get a loan with no job).
This is a single symptom of a larger issue, namely an excess of laws to the point that any law can be arbitrarily used to prosecute you if you are of an unwanted class, race, etc. Add on top the police quota system and you have a recipe of this type of injustice that runs the gamut, from antiquidated knife laws to the drug war. To me, this is largely a result of lawyers fucking ruining everything they touch, and then…
It's absolutely absurd that "arrest quotas" are even a thing in America. The job of the police in most first world countries is to protect the people, not make arrests for ludicrous laws. I don't want my tax dollars funding police officers camping out on highways to hand out speeding tickets or arresting random people for having pocket knives on them. No wonder Americans have such an adversarial relationship with the…
And by extension the government. Americans have a built in distrust of our government (often for good reason), which is why a lot of policies don’t happen here.
Most weapon bans are pretty silly and arbitrary. Look at the old AWB... Flash hider? Banned.. Muzzle Break? ok... Bayonet Lug? Banned... Grenade launcher oh sorry I mean “flaregun attachment” is ok as long as you can’t fix a bayonet on it...
"Flash hider? Banned.. Muzzle Break? ok" In all fairness, muzzle breaks have practical civilian use as a way to reduce recoil for target shooting, while flash hiders just make it difficult for authorities to spot the location of a shooter. Muzzle breaks actually increase the noise level of a firearm, making more detectable than a stock barrel.
Might want to ask yourself where you learned that, then discount that source as a valid source of information in the future.
New York (State and City) has an obsession with blaming weapons (and potential weapons) for crime, they have a web of arcane and nonsensical laws which tend to penalize common people who want to believe that the laws are reasonable, and are surprised to find out just how unreasonable they are. The officials of course love these laws. They've made the public so wary of "weapons" that it's valuable for them to invent a…
New York abolished slavery in 1799 and New Jersey in 1804. Pennsylvania was first in 1780. What you're 'wondering' is right wing nonsense.
Racism totally existed in “free” states. His argument his the laws were more sneaky about it, since you couldn’t just say “no guns for blacks”
Why isn't this enough to get all the cases thrown out under the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law?
Black and hispanic people are prosecuted while white ones were not? Owners of corporate persons were personally liable under criminal charges while chains only had to pay a fine?
>The officer said, ‘When I find someone with one of these knives, sometimes I arrest him, sometimes I give him a summons, sometimes I just let him go.’ ” Galluzzo’s partner, Zachary Johnson, also a former district attorney in Manhattan, adds that such discretion is supposed to be exercised by prosecutors, not cops on the beat . “An officer should be making an arrest every time or none of the time,” Johnson says. “Oth…
I don't understand. Why is it fair if that decision just happens a bit further up the chain? What's the difference?