Yup. Fairly large number of pro 2A folks on the left, and growing every year.
We just don’t feel the need to fetishise guns like some on the right do.
So, you are obtuse and refuse to confirm the evidence establishing Alvin Bragg’s type of policy, which puts criminals back on the streets, results in those very criminals being re-arrested for additional crimes against hard-working citizens and their families. And you have the nerve to insinuate dishonesty on my part?
JWK
Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
1 Like
Your “evidence” doesn’t establish that. And yes, you’re being dishonest. Here’s what the memo says about bail:
“4. When requesting bail, ADAs must request a partially or unsecured bond in the same
amount as the cash bail request.
5. If defense counsel requests, ADAs working in the arraignment parts shall inform defense
counsel prior to their client’s arraignment of the Office’s bail request and any plea offer.
6. For those individuals whose conditions, particularly their physical and mental health,
change during incarceration, the Pathways to Public Safety Bureau will review and consent
to a change in bail or release conditions if necessary.”
Your assertion that I am being dishonest is not only unsubstantiated, but borders on violating the forum rules.
You are the one dwelling on bail. Not me. My argument from the very beginning, and all through the thread has to do with allowing criminal back on the streets without facing meaningful consequences, as is promulgated under Alvin Bragg’s policy,
I do not appreciate you leveling an unsubstantiated charge of dishonesty against me, Stop it!
JWK
It is absolutely shameful that those in our mainstream media and Hollywood crowd, having achieved fame, fortune and great success under a free market, free enterprise system, now work to destroy that system and impose a notoriously evil, Cuban style government, on America’s future generations.
1 Like
Accusations of dishonest are wrong but calling someone obtuse isn’t? Strange place to put the line, but fine, I’ll refrain.
lol, what? You’re the one who posted the videos about bail!
Define “meaningful consequences”. Who should decide what is and isn’t a “meaningful consequence”?
Sure, in return I’d appreciate you not leveling unsubstantiated charges of obtuseness and obfuscation at me. You don’t dish it and I won’t dish it. Fair?
Getting back to the subject of the thread . . .
The evidence confirms that allowing criminals who commit criminal offenses and are immediately put back on the streets, without facing meaningful jail time, as is promulgated under Alvin Bragg’s policy, will subject New York citizens and their families to repeated criminal activities which otherwise could not have occur if these criminals had been in jail for their crimes as prescribed under New York’s Penal Code.
JWK
They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Socialist Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist.
No, it doesn’t.
“Cases where individuals released due to bail changes”
Here’s what Bragg’s memo says about bail:
“4. When requesting bail, ADAs must request a partially or unsecured bond in the same
amount as the cash bail request.
5. If defense counsel requests, ADAs working in the arraignment parts shall inform defense
counsel prior to their client’s arraignment of the Office’s bail request and any plea offer.
6. For those individuals whose conditions, particularly their physical and mental health,
change during incarceration, the Pathways to Public Safety Bureau will review and consent
to a change in bail or release conditions if necessary.”
There you go again, ignoring the evidence.
The evidence most certainly confirms releasing criminals, whether on bail, own recognizance, (O.R.), or however, without facing meaningful jail time, as is promulgated under Alvin Bragg’s policy, will subject New York citizens and their families to repeated criminal activities which otherwise could not have occurred if these criminals had been in jail for their crimes as prescribed under New York’s Penal Code.
The following evidence confirms rearrest stats of criminals
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their most formidable domestic enemy.
Looks like Seattle is trying to up stage NYC.
“A Seattle-area prosecutor was slammed over a recent presentation to law enforcement officials in which he insisted police should “get used to” the district attorney’s office allowing juvenile suspects – even those accused of bringing a gun to school – to avoid jail time.”
I’m not ignoring your “evidence”. I’m dismissing it because it doesn’t confirm what you are asserting.
From the report that screenshot is from:
“[some name I didn’t understand says] the data doesn’t really give the whole picture because there’s no similar information to compare to just yet, and says to early to see a direct correlation.”
You’re comparing rearrests of people on bail to potential rearrests of people who have been sentenced, gone through some program, maybe paid a fine and/or did community service, and then was free.
.
What I am asserting is, the evidence most certainly confirms releasing criminals, whether on bail, own recognizance, (O.R.), or however, without facing meaningful jail time, as is promulgated under Alvin Bragg’s policy, will subject New York citizens and their families to repeated criminal activities which otherwise could not have occurred if these criminals had been in jail for their crimes as prescribed under New York’s Penal Code.
The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.
Alvin Bragg’s new policy is intentionally designed to release criminals into society, who have committed some very serious criminal offenses, without serving the prescribed jail time for such offenses. Every thinking and honest person would agree this policy will result in hard working American citizens and their families to suffer criminal activities from these offenders which they would not be subject to if these criminals had been locked up in jail for the time period as prescribed under New York’s Penal Code.
But hey, you are free to do as you have been doing and take the outlandish and bizarre position that Alvin Bragg’s policy will not inspire a new crime wave in NYC such as smash and grab, burglaries and armed robberies, inflicted upon NYC’s hardworking citizens and their families by criminals immediately released back into the community under Bragg’s policy, who would otherwise be subject to serving significant time behind bars where they belong and cannot inflict suffering on the people of NYC.
JWK
They are neither “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Socialist Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist.
JWK
I❤️NY
It’s a never ending case study in government failure
4 Likes
The more the plans fail the more the planners plan!
2 Likes
No you not 
And I’m asserting that it most certainly does not. Since neither of us have a crystal ball, we can agree to disagree.
That’s not truth, that’s your opinion.
Incorrect. It’s intentionally designed to give criminals who commit non-violent crimes a second chance before basically professionally handicapping them for life by sending them to prison.
Why are you so convinced that the prescribed jail times are the correct ones?
As a thinking and honest person I can assure you that’s wrong since I don’t agree.
Do you think adultery should still be illegal?
Which has zero to do with Alvin Bragg’s policy to release criminals into the community, who have committed some very serious criminal offenses, without serving the prescribed jail time for such offenses.
Bragg’s insane policy will predictably create a new type of crime wave tailored to his policy ___ smash and grab, burglaries, armed robberies, especially in NYC’s subway system, etc. ___ and NYC’s hard-working citizen’s will pay the price for Bragg’s version of spreading the wealth by coddling criminals.
JWK
They are neither “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Socialist Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist.
Bragg is talking about eliminating pre trial detention for certain offenses.
The idea that people who are up for trial for some non violent offenses get thrown in jail for an indefinite period of time is a bad thing to do should be a no brainer.
Big baloney!
The truth is, under Bragg’s new policy, some very serious crimes will now be charged as less serious crimes and the perps will get a slap on the wrist and be immediately returned to the community where statistics show they will continue their life of crime and inflict more pain and suffering on the hard-working citizens of NYC rather than doing time behind bars where they are away from decent members of the community.
The following offenses are now reduced as stated in Bragg’s policy:
a) An act that could be charged under PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05
that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL § 155.25 if the force
or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but
does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.
b) The possession of a non-firearm weapon under Penal Law § 265.02(1) shall not be
charged unless as a lesser included offense, and § 265.01 shall be charged instead.
c) Residential burglaries: An act involving theft of property from a storage area or other
portion of a dwelling that is not accessible to a living area that could be charged under
PL § 140.25(2) should be charged only under PL §140.20 and not under PL §140.30 or
PL §140.25(2).
d) Commercial burglaries: An act involving theft of property from a commercial
establishment that could be charged under PL § 140.25(2) because such establishment
is technically part of a larger structure that contains dwellings shall only be charged
under § 140.20.
e) Drug cases: If there is a reasonable view of the evidence indicating that a person
arrested for the sale of a controlled substance is acting as a low-level agent of a seller,
such person shall be charged with 220.03 and no felonies and therefore offered
diversion. Also, unless such charge is a lesser included offense or unless the defendant
actually sold a controlled substance, the offense of Penal Law § 220.06 shall not be
charged and 220.03 shall instead be charged.
In essence, an armed robber who now engages in First, Second and/or Third-degree Robbery, is to be charged with Petit larceny, given a DESK APPEARANCE TICKET, and be back on the streets in a few hours to repeat Armed Robbery.
Why must you make crap up and sugar-coat the new and insane Bragg policy?
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their most formidable domestic enemy.
You are reading it wrong.
The act of the robbery is still a class D felony… downgraded from a Class C. Still carries a 2 year minimum.
The act of being armed but not using the weapon in a way that would cause genuine physical harm is downgraded to a Class A Misdemeanor. That carries at least a year in jail
It is also downgrading the possession of a non firearm weapon from a class D felony to a class A misdemeanor.
All of these charges still carry with it potential jail time and the robbery would not be a desk appearance ticket since it is still a felony.
There would be a question as to whether there would be pre trial detention but that determination is made from several factors.
Stop with the baloney! From the actual policy:
a) An act that could be charged under PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05 that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL § 155.25 if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.
PL § 155.25 is Petit larceny and is a class A misdemeanor for which a Desk Appearance Ticket is issued, and the perp is out and about in a few hours.
Why must you make stuff up?
JWK
