Prosecutors and Judges Need to Be Talked About More In Relation to Rising Crime

[Wes Mantooth]

So I was reading the details that came out about the murders that occured at the Atlanta Country Club.  You can read about it here if you like:

https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-2-golf-course-shooting-victims-were-bound-gagged-in-truck-bed-warrant-says/QKQDC75RMNCK3PCSYEOUO4GW5E/

Here are the highlights of suspect's criminal history:

-In 2016 he shot someone 3 times in the chest in a drug deal gone bad.  Investigators found a large amount of marijuana in his backpack.  He was released on bail 3 days later.  He was indicted but his case is sealed and it's not clear if it went to trial or if he was convicted.

-In 2020 he had nearly 20k seized from him at the airport after a K-9 alerted officers to his bag for drug odor.  He attempted to flee and elbowed a cop in the face.

-Less than 4 months later he was arrested again after a traffic stop when officers found 44 joints and 3,000 dollars in cash, banded together in 1k incriments.

-Later in 2020 he was arrested again after leading police on a high speed chase in excess of 100 miles an hour that resulted in him crashing.  At one point speeds reach 150 miles an hour in heavy traffic conditions.

So just to dp a quick recap...  He was indicted for attempted murder in 2016 and felony drug possesion.  In 2020 he was arrested 3 seperate times.  I'll also add that another article shows he forfeited 85k dollars in 2019, which would have been tied to criminal activity, and he was recently approved for 27k PPP loan for his manage business (maybe legit, but probably not).  Why was he still out on the streets?

So what was the end result?  Two men taped up and bound and gagged, found dead in the back of a pickup a truck.  A golf pro, who was the father of 2 young children getting shot at point blank range 5 times all because this idiot got a truck stuck on his golf course with two people he kidnapped in the truck bed.

It gets better (much worse), the same day the murders occured (before the police knew he was a suspect) he was arrested for DUI, providing a false ID (he had two fake ID's), driving an unregistered Maserati that had another cars plates (Temp tag) on it.  Guess who was let out on bond that same day?

How does this happen?  Why do I hear about so many people being in jail for simply having marijuana when this guy has the arrest record he does, and he's got a slew of other charges in there, including attempted murder?

Also, let's not pretend like this is some unicorn of a case.  It seems like almost every horrendous thing I read about the suspect has a rap sheet that leads me to similar questions.  An asian person gets beat, a homeless person stabs someone, a kid gets shot, a dad beats his kid to death, you'll often find these people shouldn't have been out on the street in the first place.

Here's a local example:  You know that shooting that occured at Smale Park that left two people dead and quite a few people in the hospital?  One of the murderers beat someone so bad they permananty disabled them just last year.  They were given probabtion.  Had they been locked up like they should have maybe this wouldn't have occured.

Look at the prosectuor in San Fran (the one whose parents are the Weather Underground murderers, and who was raised by Bill Ayers), look at Kim Foxx in Chicago, look at their respective cities and the results of their work.  Look to all of the judges who let these people walk the streets.  It's a real big freaking problem.  And people want bail reform?  They think the system is too harsh as it is?

We often look to needing more police to solve these issues, but what good does that do if they make an arrest and these people are let right back out?

People are talking about getting rid of qualified immunity for police (terrible idea, you won't be able find people to fill those jobs.  Cops can't keep lawyers on retainer making 60-90k a year, which is what they would have to do).  How about getting rid of it for judges and prosecutors?    Whoever is reponsible for this man walking the streets, whoever is responsible for these two little girls not having a father, why shouldn't they be able to be sued?  Why shouldn't they face charges?  They're responsible for 3 men now being dead.

Sorry, just had to vent.  Like I said earlier, I seem to see this all to often.  There's people in positions of power who aren't doing their jobs to protect citizens.  And not nearly enough attention gets paid to this problem.

[Wes Mantooth]

It appears that perhaps some aren't interested in this thread, but I'm going to post another example just for good measure.  I just read this on Yahoo. (Fwiw, I come across these types of stories multiple times a day)

https://news.yahoo.com/man-shoots-couple-houston-aquarium-135700615.html

There was a man in Houston, who had a lengthy criminal record and a history of mental illness, who walked into an Aquariaum and shot a husband and wife.  The husband died and the wife is in recovery.  The victims appear to be totally random, as they did not know the shooter.  In fact, the victims weren't even from Houston, they were there on vacation.

Now let's look at the suspect's recent arrest record...

Last April he was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Note: They discovered this during a disturbance at a bar while he was high on meth.)  He was freed on bond.

Right off the bat, I'm wondering how this came to be.  You have a convicted felon with a gun charge.  I thought this resulted in 5 years minimum.  I understand this is during Covid but this the last type of person you want roaming the streets.

It gets worse.  In October of that same year, while I would assume still facing charges for the felony gun possession, he gets arrested again, this time for criminal mischeif, for tearing up a hotel room.  Does he get locked up for good this time?  No.  He's freed once again.

He was also out on yet another bond, for criminal tresspass at a fire station that occured the very next month in Septemeber.  So now we're up to 3 seperate bonds, all for a, previous to these crimes, convicted felon.  Who is setting these bail amounts?  Why is bail even an option for someone like this?

Also, this man has an arrest record that dates back to 2000, but I can't find all of these details.  The ones above all occured within a 7 month period.

Why isn't there more of an uproar about this?  Why are these prosecutors and judges not held to the fire?  You want to talk about people of power doing harm to a community, look no further than the people that allowed this to happen.  This man had absolutely no business being out of jail, and as a result a man is left dead and his wife is in  the hospital.  This could and should have been prevented.

[Goalpost]

https://local12.com/news/local/westwood-shooting-suspect-was-out-on-bond-while-waiting-on-gun-charges-trial-cincinnati

Here's another recent one that shouldn't have happened if it's true his bond was originally set at 91,000 dollars.

[masonbengals fan]

Spot on post Wes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Don't even get me started on this subject. You wouldn't believe the change in tone in Los Angeles since our resident human garbage DA, Gascon, took office. We just had a case in which a sixteen year old shot someone seven times in the abdomen and chest in a gang related shooting. Was charged with attempted murder and the DA took a plea deal that only sent the kid to suitable placement. A group home that they can leave at any time, seeing as how the law does not allow group home staff from preventing anyone fourteen or older from leaving. Also, Gascon likes to charge people with attempted robbery even when they very successfully robbed the person. We had one in which the subject robbed thirteen people at gun point over the span of a few hours. They successfully deprived the victim of their property, again at gun point, and left the scene. Why is Gascon only charging them with attempted robbery? Because actual robbery is a strike offense and Gascon doesn't believe in strikes for crimes that aren't forcible rape, child molestation with violence murder or attempt murder.

Gascon also doesn't believe in sentencing enhancements and won't file them, except for hate crime enhancements because the woke mob here in LA screamed bloody murder and he tucked his tail between his legs on that issue. This guy can't get out of office fast enough.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-11-2021, 12:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't even get me started on this subject.  You wouldn't believe the change in tone in Los Angeles since our resident human garbage DA, Gascon, took office.  We just had a case in which a sixteen year old shot someone seven times in the abdomen and chest in a gang related shooting.  Was charged with attempted murder and the DA took a plea deal that only sent the kid to suitable placement.  A group home that they can leave at any time, seeing as how the law does not allow group home staff from preventing anyone fourteen or older from leaving.  Also, Gascon likes to charge people with attempted robbery even when they very successfully robbed the person.  We had one in which the subject robbed thirteen people at gun point over the span of a few hours.  They successfully deprived the victim of their property, again at gun point, and left the scene.  Why is Gascon only charging them with attempted robbery?  Because actual robbery is a strike offense and Gascon doesn't believe in strikes for crimes that aren't forcible rape, child molestation with violence murder or attempt murder.

Gascon also doesn't believe in sentencing enhancements and won't file them, except for hate crime enhancements because the woke mob here in LA screamed bloody murder and he tucked his tail between his legs on that issue.  This guy can't get out of office fast enough.

It's insanity.  I just don't understand how there isn't more attention paid to this.  It's feels like almost every damn story I read about some horrendous crime leaves me asking myself the same thing; why was this person out on the streets to begin with?

The other question I'm often left with (which has an obvious answer) is which communites and which people does this affect the most?  Well, the answer to that is of course impoverished communties and many of the minorities these people in power claim so much that they want to help.

As far as Gascon, I will say I was absolutely shocked when I first started hearing about all of the problems he was creating and then I learned he was a former cop.  I'm not so naive not to know that many of these people know exactly it is they're doing and the problems they're exposing their citizens to, but it hits different when a former cop is so willing to play the game.  This man knows better than most what is actually going to occur as a result of this approach.  Apparently he doesn't care (like at all) as long as he scores political points.

I also don't understand how we can have so much conversation about gun crimes, and focus on only the gun part and not the crime part.  For a crime to occur you need a criminal.  For agurments sake, let's all assume there's a lot that needs to happen with gun laws and reform.  Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?  How about while you're working on that (the gun part), you address the crime part in the meantime?

I mean, what are we even doing here?  How does everyone not see this?

Hoefully this thread can get some comments from some of the more left leaning members.  I know it's a new thread so maybe they'll eventually chime in, but I'd be lying if I said that my initial reaction isn't that they want to ignore it like so many others.  I don't know how anyone can read some of these stories and not be enraged. 

[BigPapaKain]

I mean, I'm leftist and I'll chime in just to say someone did.

All the leftists I know have talked about how the courts have been failing society for years. We didn't wait for a sudden uptick in crime to talk about how idiotic the system is.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-11-2021, 05:24 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I mean, I'm leftist and I'll chime in just to say someone did.

All the leftists I know have talked about how the courts have been failing society for years. We didn't wait for a sudden uptick in crime to talk about how idiotic the system is.

I'll bite, and ask the question "How so?".

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-11-2021, 05:24 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I mean, I'm leftist and I'll chime in just to say someone did.

1.) All the leftists I know have talked about how the courts have been failing society for years.

2.) We didn't wait for a sudden uptick in crime to talk about how idiotic the system is.

1.) Can you expand on this?  What do you mean the courts have been failing society for years?  It seems you've written this in a way that's a bit ambigious. 

The theme of thread is that too far many criminals are either not locked up, or not they're locked up for long enough.  The takeaway is that certain judges/DA's/prosecutors are putting innocent civilians at risk by allowing this to occur.  Are you agreeing with this, or are you talking about other ways in which the courts have failed society? 

On one hand, it seems like you're saying this is something that every "leftist (your words not mine)"you know agrees with.  On the other hand, I find this almost impossible to believe, and I feel like you're speaking about something else entirely.

2.) Similar to the question above:  How is the system "idiotic"?  It is because the people like ones mentioned above are allowed to roam the streets, or is it something else?  Some clarification would be nice.

Also, are you insinuating that people on the right are only now bringing this up to explain an uptick, but the left has been doing it all along?  Surely that's not your argument, right?  This is definitely not a new stance from the right.

Fwiw, this isn't something I've noticed just recently, and I've explored only because of recent events.  It's something I've long known and believed; there are people out there on the streets that have no business being out there.  Innocent people suffer because of those in positions of power that fail to uphiold the law, or protect the people they're supposed to protect.

The only reason I found this worthy of a thread right now is because the rise in crime is a hot topic, and I thought this could spur some healthy conversation.  But if you would have asked my opinon 6 months ago, or 6 years ago, it would have been the same.  It's not like a lightbulb just went off.

I do appreciate the reply, and look forward to your response.  I will say, if turns out that you're in full agreement (these people should have been locked up) I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on incarceration rates.  I've heard many on the left complain that will lock too many people up.  Obviously if we're on the same page here, it would result in more people getting locked up.

[BigPapaKain]

To answer both of your questions; if you've paid any attention to crime news over the past 20 or so years, you constantly see pieces of shit walking on technicalities and money for a long LONG time, while people are being put away for decades for a few grams of weed.

Why it's only pissing y'all off now is beyond me, but I've been reading stories like the ones y'all told for so long I'm just numb to it.

[Benton]

In general, the courts are overburdened.

If you have a pd, they will most likely force you to plead, whether you're guilty or not. If you can get any sort of legal representation, you'll most likely get a reduced sentence. It's crazy, but it's where we are.

What's that got to do with an over burdened legal system? If you've got 15 hours worth of litigation to fit into an 8-hour day, judges arent going to force everything

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-11-2021, 10:51 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: To answer both of your questions; if you've paid any attention to crime news over the past 20 or so years, you constantly see pieces of shit walking on technicalities and money for a long LONG time, while people are being put away for decades for a few grams of weed.

Why it's only pissing y'all off now is beyond me, but I've been reading stories like the ones y'all told for so long I'm just numb to it.

Do you honestly believe this, that people are being put away for decades for a few grams of weed?

In my initial post I gave you an example of someone whose been charged with possessing and distributing hundreds, if not not thousands of grams of weed, and more importantly this is in addition to a slew of other crimes (attempted murder, felony gun charges, evading arrest, assault on a police officer, ect.)  Forget decades, this man did days in jail.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, many of these people you read about who are ncarcerated for "weed" are not all that different from this man.  They'll offer a plea bargain or a sentence agreement that dismisses the more serious charges for guilty plea on the drug charges.  What you're left with is someone who appears they're in jail for "a couple grams of weeds", when the reality is there's a whole mess of other charges that caused their sentence to be what it is (violent crime, repeated distribution, numerous probation/parole violations, ect.)

I'm sorry, but for someone to sit here and say there's people in jail for what you described is just about the most ignorant shit I've ever read.  Not only have you entered this thread (as the lone member of left as you've dsecribed) with asbolutely nothing to add to conversation, you've managed to try to side-step the entire topic at hand.

I really don't even know why I bother engaging someone like you.  It's such a waste of time, and I certainly knew better.  Yet I gave you the benfit of the doubt, which is something I will not do again.  I mean, seriously, this is the best you got?  For Christ's sakes, man.  This is a joke of a response.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-11-2021, 11:34 PM)Benton Wrote: In general, the courts are overburdened.

If you have a pd, they will most likely force you to plead, whether you're guilty or not. If you can get any sort of legal representation, you'll most likely get a reduced sentence. It's crazy, but it's where we are.

What's that got to do with an over burdened legal system? If you've got 15 hours worth of litigation to fit into an 8-hour day, judges arent going to force everything

Crazy thought: Maybe if the court system didn't have so many repeat offenders, and people who continually cycle through the system (people who should already be locked up) then it wouldn't be so overburdened?

Just spitballing here: I would think this could result in with judges "forcing" someone like the man who ultimately shot a father of two young girls 5 times at point blank range, for no other reason than stumbling opon a kidnapping, to remain behind bars and not be a threat to the public.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-12-2021, 12:24 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Clearly we both wasted our time interacting with each other.

Seriously dude.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-12-2021, 01:46 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Seriously dude.

I tried talking in good faith; but what are you going to do?

I suppose I could've written in crayon and explained everything I meant instead of leaving threads for him to pull himself.

Saddest part is I agree with him about the whole thing.

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2021, 02:00 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I tried talking in good faith; but what are you going to do?

I suppose I could've written in crayon and explained everything I meant instead of leaving threads for him to pull himself.

Saddest part is I agree with him about the whole thing.

There may be a reason you haven't seen me posting, much.

[treee]

There are hundreds of thousands of criminal cases each year running through thousands of of different court systems at the local, state, and federal levels. In each of those individual criminal cases, there are at least a judge and a prosecutor as two different variables in the severity of sentencing. When you have such an ubiquitous institution presiding over thousands of different versions of law, it's no surprise that one could easily find individual cases where the sentencing did not protect the general public in a manner proportional to threat of the defendant.

I can understand why some judges and prosecutors would want to avoid charging people with felonies. It permanently legally cements you as a second class citizen with less rights, in some ways forever. There have been statistical examples of these things targeting minorities the worst, for example sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine.

People generally want a restorative justice system and not a punitive one, and that has been an arduous pursuit with imperfect results.

[Wes Mantooth]

This was in your initial post...

"We didn't wait for a sudden uptick in crime to talk about how idiotic the system is."

I took some time in my reply in to ask about it and explain myself..

"Also, are you insinuating that people on the right are only now bringing this up to explain an uptick, but the left has been doing it all along?  Surely that's not your argument, right?  This is definitely not a new stance from the right."

"Fwiw, this isn't something I've noticed just recently, and I've explored only because of recent events.  It's something I've long known and believed; there are people out there on the streets that have no business being out there.  Innocent people suffer because of those in positions of power that fail to uphiold the law, or protect the people they're supposed to protect."

"The only reason I found this worthy of a thread right now is because the rise in crime is a hot topic, and I thought this could spur some healthy conversation.  But if you would have asked my opinon 6 months ago, or 6 years ago, it would have been the same.  It's not like a lightbulb just went off."

And this one is from your 2nd reply...

"Why it's only pissing y'all off now is beyond me"

Now you're going to come back and question my reading comprehension, say that you should have written your response in crayon, and claim you entered the conversation in good faith?  Gimme a break.


 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I would agree with those pointing out that such miscarriages of justice have definitely occurred in the past. As long as we rely on human subjective judgement there will always be such mistakes. The issue at hand is that there are DA's in several cities who flat out refuse to enforce the law as written. This is a clear, and intentional, abuse of the discretion the DA has in filing charges. If you don't like the law fight to change it. When the person who is supposed to enforce the law treats it as optional, or like a buffet in which they pick and choose what to enforce, you denigrate the rule of law in general. These people aren't making mistakes or errors in judgment, they are deliberately enforcing an ideology. I can tell you first hand (and someone here once told me anecdotal evidence is fine) that the criminals feel emboldened and expect to face little to no consequences for their conduct. The sad part is they're more right than wrong in that regard.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-12-2021, 10:44 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: This was in your initial post...

"We didn't wait for a sudden uptick in crime to talk about how idiotic the system is."

I took some time in my reply in to ask about it and explain myself..

"Also, are you insinuating that people on the right are only now bringing this up to explain an uptick, but the left has been doing it all along?  Surely that's not your argument, right?  This is definitely not a new stance from the right."

"Fwiw, this isn't something I've noticed just recently, and I've explored only because of recent events.  It's something I've long known and believed; there are people out there on the streets that have no business being out there.  Innocent people suffer because of those in positions of power that fail to uphiold the law, or protect the people they're supposed to protect."

"The only reason I found this worthy of a thread right now is because the rise in crime is a hot topic, and I thought this could spur some healthy conversation.  But if you would have asked my opinon 6 months ago, or 6 years ago, it would have been the same.  It's not like a lightbulb just went off."

And this one is from your 2nd reply...

"Why it's only pissing y'all off now is beyond me"

Now you're going to come back and question my reading comprehension, say that you should have written your response in crayon, and claim you entered the conversation in good faith?  Gimme a break.


 

I didn't mean to imply that the light bulb just turned on now for you in particular; I meant to be speaking in general - as in my experience people "on the right" (your words; I'm talking people in general who don't normally talk about this kind of thing) have been talking more about the flaws in the system, whereas most people I usually talk to about crime in general have been making a lot of the same statements you've made here for years, so much so that we don't even bother bringing it up anymore when we talk about it.

But if you want to keep up your condescending attitude about it, I'll go ahead and just assume that you're full on upset because the light bulb DID just turn on in your head and you're upset that I called you on it, however inadvertently.