|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 22, 2017, 01:20 AM | #26 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Courts have rarely found fault with an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and then only when the party objecting has been able to show by clear and convincing evidence both a discriminatory effect and a discriminatory purpose. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 22, 2017, 01:50 AM | #27 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 20, 2017
Posts: 12
|
I can cite the case law to you yes but wait... did we skip over something?
How was I wrong again? Anyway the fact is that if you say I must be 18 to smoke and 21 to drink alcohol and I smoke and drink at 17 then I have committed two offenses. In that instant discretion is appropriate and I may be prosecuted for one or the other instead of both. However if you say I "shall not" grow weed or make suppressors and i do one someone else the other there is no legal basis for which you may discriminate against me because one is "less offensive" in the public political view than the other. I would certainly argue clear and convincing discrimination if I were in that situation. BUT... I think you missed the discussion here. If you want to put on a legal argument rather than a discussion I would be willing to do that. But here because that argument would be moot what my point is does matter regardless of how things work... in your view. "Necessitate discretion on how resources are spent" That a poor reasoning if ever there was one. Can you point to the morality statutes that divine what offense is better for the public to be prosecuted. Does that statute specify between sexual assault of a child and rape of an adult and which takes financial priority?? You cant shut down someones point of view because they dont prove a hypothetical but somewhat obvious motivation to you. For that matter where is your proof that Unicorns dont exist? |
October 22, 2017, 01:57 AM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
How the law and the legal system work will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your points of view and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 22, 2017 at 02:11 AM. Reason: Correct typo |
|
October 22, 2017, 02:22 AM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 20, 2017
Posts: 12
|
Ok I can stay within that frame.
So the reality is that because these discussions are never had nothing ever changes. The reality is 2$ wont buy my coffee and the reality is that a billion dollar illegal industry is going on full force right under the nose nay snubbing its nose at the Federal Government and that Government does nothing according to its "policy" but would rather prosecute an individual whom it knows will not have the public support or media attention. The reality is that the legal system is not a justice system. |
October 22, 2017, 03:09 AM | #30 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And if you want to do away with prosecutorial discretion, how do you propose dealing with the result? How would you distinguish the prosecutor's decision not to pursue a criminal charge because in his exercise of professional judgment he's concluded that here was insufficient evidence to convict from an exercise of discretion? Will the prosecutor now have to spend his time defending every decision not to prosecute instead of spending his time prosecuting crimes he can convict for? And how will we pay for the expansion of court and police capacity. Quote:
In Shaw's Major Barbara, Andrew Undershaft (the millionaire maker of cannon) is in conversation with his son, Stephen: Since the dawn of civilization, and probably before, people everywhere have been continually struggling to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong." They are generally unsuccessful, except with regard to the most extreme circumstances. Sure, murder is off the table; but when does killing someone morph from murder to justifiable homicide. We can generally agree that it is wrong to steal the property of another; but how do we punish a man stealing bread to feed his starving child. That's where law comes in. While people are struggling unsuccessfully to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", we still need a way to resolve disputes without tearing the fabric of society asunder. We might not all be able to reach agreement on "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", except on occasion at certain crossing points, but in the real world we must still be able to get on with life. Perhaps a true common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong" will come to us in Heaven. But in the meantime we'll need to try to get along as best we can with the tools we have.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
October 25, 2017, 07:50 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|