|
Randbrick posted:A competent prosecutor doesn't wait until after speedy trial timeframes have elapsed to nolle prosse. When their case is unformed, unprepared, or unresearched, they generally offer a plea on the day of trial, with the threat of continuance or nolle prosse if that plea is rejected. The former will hold a client without bond over for at least 2 weeks, while the latter will result in re-arrest and is actually a tangible threat even to a client who has bond. Of course, this will also typically result in a client losing jail credit for time served prior to incarceration on the "new" charge. How often can prosecutors hit that "reset button"? Could a malicious prosecutor feasibly re-file charges and drop them as many times as they wished without legal repercussion?
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The military actually has rules of engagement and tries not to kill innocent people. I remember reading an article several years ago where a US Army officer said that when it came to cornering someone inside a house in Iraq, he was literally under stricter rules of engagement than the cops are. The army would surround the house and basically wait the guy out, and more often than not the dude would surrender within like 24 hours. If I remember right, actually breaking into the house was considered extremely risky and a last resort, and he'd have to get permission from further up the chain of command to do so. Contrast with the cops where they're loving gung-ho about bashing the door in and throwing flashbangs and LARPing out their Tom Clancy Rainbow Six fantasies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
I think you guys got the completely wrong message from my post. I was trying to suggest that the police are so out of control that they exercise less restraint than an occupying army fighting an insurgency, and that this highlights just how hosed up police tactics and use of force are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah but your message was completely wrong, we didn't use less restraint. Fine, I guess I either misremembered the article, or the author was incorrect. You win. The police are still too loving violent and no-knock raids are used way too loving often.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Freddie Grey arrest warrents drawn up to arrest Princess Peach the lunch lady and a Mario brother (warning, autoplaying video). Princess Peach was not the woman kidnapped by Donkey Kong. You're thinking of Bowser.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why the exception for a "Swat" team? There is literally no need for one. The purpose of "shock and awe" no-knock raids is to secure drug evidence incase the occupants try to destroy it. And to that I say, "so what?" Your precious evidence isn't worth the huge escalation of force against citizens. SWAT teams should be explicitly federally banned and should exist as only an FBI special task force. That's an interesting argument, usually people say we should largely disarm the regular cops and leave the firearms to special teams for things like violent bank robbers packing body armor (which is absolutely a very rare circumstance). If we make it so that regular cops don't get rifles and there's no SWAT, should there be a point of escalation between street cops and calling out the National Guard?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 21:09
|
|