It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

page: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

sessions has sworn to uphold the laws don`t be made at him just because he is an honorable person who takes his oath seriously, be mad at your congress person who won`t change the laws, and STOP voting for that congress person.





Sessions was also responsible for leading the charge in congress.

He is literally a career union stooge, just as vile as a Democrat in the teachers unions pockets, and a private prison salesman.




posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
The scariest part is realizing just what a large percentage of this country supports this narcissistic megalomaniac and every asinine decision he and his acolytes make. Cheering him on as he and his goons lord over this country with their oppressive and regressive policies.


Welcome to the last 8 years.


Well if we're going that route then welcome to the last half a century or so...
edit on 12-5-2017 by RainbowPhoenix because: Typo

edit on 12-5-2017 by RainbowPhoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I hope this p.o.s old towne racist scumbag child rapist gets what he deserves. The fires are stoking.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight
in my jurisdiction, the city police will write you a ticket if under 20 grams.
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It keeps repeat offenders from flooding a jurisdiction with large quantities of illicit drugs. As in, with that offender behind bars, he/she will not be doing so anymore. It sends a message to organized crime that the community will not tolerate such activity. I live in a really nice city. This is a direct effect of great community policing and strict enforcement of laws. Hell, I have spent some time in court rooms. I have seen the leniency of judges around here get tested time and time again.

Our biggest problems in regards to drugs in this jurisdiction are coc aine and opiates abuse. This city was ground zero for sourcing during the pill mill epidemic of the early 2000's. It was addressed at a State level, and the problem has dwindled, but now heroin is making a comeback.

The powder is not as big an issue because it is not readily available unless you know people. You cannot just go to housing projects and pick up baggies of coke from peddlers on the corner like other big cities. I think mand. mins. have played a role in making it that way. The alternative is it leniency, and being able to just go to a housing project and pick it up from a peddler on the corner. This encourages what we had in the nineties when I was a kid and saw this stuff. Doped out people fighting everywhere and committing petty ass crime Because you could just get it on the corner from some guy.

The city took a stand, so did the state. Now such blatant criminal activity is not so brazenly committed anymore, and the streets have gotten much safer.
a
Other than that, my jurisdiction will write you a citation for possession less than 20 grams of MJ. If you only have a gram or less of powder though, they give leniency in the court rooms I have noticed as well. Habituals get referred to diversion programs and rehab if they are not being violent. Eventually the patience of a judge wears thing when the same person is back on a fifth or sixth instance, or VOP even.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

So no. You don't have any evidence in support of mandatory minimums being effective. Just a bunch of words and rhetoric.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

now we are making progress, so you admit that you aren`t upset at sessions you`re upset at the laws.

only congress can change the laws.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Jeff sessions loves unions. These guys.

www.nationalreview.com...


He does not recognize the need for an extensive marksmanship training review and change, new training in general for tactical awareness and stress, does not recognize 80 percent of officers are out of shape and heart disease and stress ate killing them much faster than criminals, they are woefully underpaid in bad areas and over paid in good ones, etc.


He is terrible for actual police officers other than making their lives easier with legal protection. He is certainly terrible for society.

As a senator he led the charge of being tough on crime while being part of the worst enforcement Era of our country. Along with democrats like bill Clinton of coarse.

Why. Money. Union votes and private prisons. Same as it ever was.

He is no legal genius.
edit on 12-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

now we are making progress, so you admit that you aren`t upset at sessions you`re upset at the laws.

only congress can change the laws.


No. I'm DEFINITELY upset at Sessions. Sessions could have just as easily extended Holder's memo while we get Congress to undo those laws, but instead he wants to remove it. He is 100% at fault here and deserves tons of ire and contempt.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

He has no intention of moving forward with civil rights.




More than 1,400 law professors from 48 states have signed a letter urging the Senate to reject the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, for U.S. attorney general. The only signature from a current faculty member at the University of Alabama School of Law, where Sessions earned his degree, is mine.


www.usatoday.com...
edit on 15CDT09America/Chicago04390931 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Sessions was a huge part of making the laws. He was in the Senate until a few months ago. He was also on subcommittees specifically promoting these laws.

Now he is making sure they are fully enforced.

All the while taking suckling up to private prisons, and leo's.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Sessions doesn't agree with any of the police consent decrees that popped up recently either. He tried to block the one in Baltimore despite EVERYONE in the city police and citizen alike agreeing with it.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Consent decrees 'can reduce morale of the police officers'

AG Sessions orders review of consent decrees and other police reforms

The directive from the nation's top law enforcement officer comes at a critical time for several major cities, including Baltimore and Chicago, which revealed unconstitutional patterns of racial discrimination and excessive force in policing in length reports.

Good thing judges were having none of that:
Federal judge approves Baltimore police consent decree

Sessions is a scum bag of the highest caliber and this should be obvious to anyone paying attention. He is NOT making this decision because he has America's best interests at heart.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: worldstarcountry
Why do you think mandatory minimums are a good thing? Do you have any historical precedence to show their success?

I answered your question exactly as it was asked with the experience in my jurisdiction.

Do we really need to bring up the numerous charts and graphs that show a radical and continuing decline in violent crimes across the entire US, and crime in general following the decade of implementation of these policies?? Or do you sincerely believe everyone just started to be behave because ??

Funny enough, it only started to rise again in the last few years during the last Democratic administration, and their lenient law enforcement policies. Quite a strange thing. You know what, I will go find those statistics for you, since you asked.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: worldstarcountry
Why do you think mandatory minimums are a good thing? Do you have any historical precedence to show their success?

I answered your question exactly as it was asked with the experience in my jurisdiction.

Do we really need to bring up the numerous charts and graphs that show a radical and continuing decline in violent crimes across the entire US, and crime in general following the decade of implementation of these policies?? Or do you sincerely believe everyone just started to be behave because ??

Funny enough, it only started to rise again in the last few years during the last Democratic administration, and their lenient law enforcement policies. Quite a strange thing. You know what, I will go find those statistics for you, since you asked.


It would be good to also include non biased crimenology explanations of causation. Rather than simply throw up stats.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Do we really need to bring up the numerous charts and graphs that show a radical and continuing decline in violent crimes across the entire US, and crime in general following the decade of implementation of these policies?? Or do you sincerely believe everyone just started to be behave because ??


Yes. You do. I demand evidence. Anecdotes don't cut it. Present to me a well argued rebuttal that shows that mandatory minimums are effective and worth the effort using data, evidence, reasoned responses on the matter from experts, etc. Your opinions just show that you are biased.

This is ATS. Put up or shutup. Deny ignorance isn't just a slogan.
edit on 12-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: UKTruth

Straight from the party of small government. Hope you don't choke on your hypocrisy!


Small govt does not mean ignoring drug laws.
Sorry, try again.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: RedDragon
Lmao at voting for laws in and then complaining when they're enforced. Come on man. You know weed's illegal. So, why do you smoke it? Are you addicted? You just can't stop, can you?


Laws are not passed by a vote. Try again. As a matter of fact, how dare you. I have an autoimmune disease that is slowly eating away at my joints and will probably leave me crippled long before I reach retirement age. The most popular treatment for this disease destroys my immune system and makes me susceptible to opportunistic infections or god forbid, Tuberculosis. That's saying nothing of the long term effects.

Know what else I can treat my disease with? Cannabis. Side effects are elevated mood and an increased tolerance of the piss-poor behaviors exhibited by my fellow man. This does not stop my chronic joint pain. All it does is make me not notice the pain as much but that's enough. Hell, I don't even get the munchies anymore. Why don't I just take a genuine gov't-approved magic opiate pill like the rest of the country? Severely allergic to codeine, and moderately allergic to any opiate that isn't intravenous morphine. I can't take 'em without throwing my lunch up all over the wall.

On one hand, I can stay legal and be sick all the damned time. On the other, I'm a criminal but I can actually be a functioning member of society.

This is life under your America. I don't often agree with Krazysh0t but this is one of those times. I voted Trump and if the election was held again tomorrow I'd do it again but our President's choice of an AG turned my stomach.
edit on 12-5-2017 by netwarrior because: left out an R



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one wants to touch the police union issue hmmm..union are bad they protect lazy ineffective workers....except when they have guns and authority. Then they work.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one wants to touch the police union issue hmmm..union are bad they protect lazy ineffective workers....except when they have guns and authority. Then they work.

The police unions are also some of the chief drivers of increasing mandatory minimum sentencing. Them and private prisons. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

so, you`re upset at him because he won`t violate his oath,to uphold the laws, like the previous AG did.

some people take an oath very seriously,maybe for him on a personal level, civil disobedience by not upholding his oath to the fullest, just isn`t an option.

maybe to him he finds it morally wrong to play politics with the laws that congress passed,maybe he realizes that he has no authority to try to undermine and subvert the laws that congress passed.

The dude is just doing his job to the best of his ability and with diligence,that used to be a commendable trait for a public servant.

maybe if the drug dealers took some of their massive profits and hired some high priced lobbyists they could get the laws changed.


edit on 12-5-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The real solution has been and is still very simple.

If we decriminalize drug possession and allow legitimate corporations to sell them (under some regulations and taxation), all of the cartels will collapse overnight. It will be like cigs or beer or hydrocodone or whatever.

Besides, people actually have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies. Otherwise we should criminalize out-of-wedlock sex because it spreads STDs and that's very bad for you, and other similar hardline totalitarian policies.

And not to mention that the government still doesn't have legitimate Constitutional authority to prohibit the possession or use of these drugs flat out, they only have authority to regulate and tax. (See Prohibition of Alcohol incident, it required an Amendment to authorize)

Sigh.... but no really you guys should go back to your pointless right vs left politricking and bickering.
Yall can be so stubborn and short-sighted....



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join