DA's can decide what laws the want to enforce and what laws they don't. They can even decide what laws do and don't apply in a case. They can lock you up and charge you with a crime even if it isn't law. So why do we even have laws?

This is where living in a red state with a republican governor would make a difference. A Soros purchased DA would/should never get away with that in a red state.

The laws make no sense. If you want crime to go down, you wouldn't go after criminals. Every study strongly suggests this.

Glad this case in Chicago is getting international news. But we already know if something happened to one of her relatives, that there would be 24 detectives assigned to the case, and the offender would get the maximum punishment......

Which case?

Sorry about how I wrote that, but I keep hearing about DA's choosing not to prosecute or deciding that there will be no jail time. Or like in the case in Autin (Perry) they chose to bypass the self defense laws. 2020 riots for example, Antifa memebers assaulted and burned property and when they got caught they were never held accountable.

I think that if a DA "chooses not to prosecute" then there should be oversite, and if there was a law broken and they chose to just let it slide, they should be held accountable and if it's found they have any personal or political cause they can be disbarred.

An assistant DA near where I live got charged with 8 felony counts of rape and only got 6 month in jail srs

Writ of Mandamus

You're paying attention now, it isn't new, prosecutors have always had fairly wide ranging discretion as to which matters they want to take to courts.

It's called lawfare. Right now we have outright commies teaching law students to reinterpret the law to conform to their groomer ideologies. Those mentally ill lawyers will eventually become mentally ill judges if there isnt either a national divorce or a pinochet style purge in the next 20 to 30 years

pinochet style purge? did nazi that 1 coming

you have grown tired in trolling, your content shows this.

You had me curious, and while it's a bit early still and I haven't had my coffee, after a little searching I found part of the answer as to why prosecutors can basically act as they please:[URL=https://ij.org/immunity-for-prosecutorial-conduct/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CProsecutorial%20immunity%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20judge,matter%20how%20egregious%20the%20behavior.]Prosecutorial immunity[/URL]

[i]“Prosecutorial immunity” is a judge-made doctrine that cloaks prosecutors in near-absolute immunity from suit. Under this doctrine, prosecutors cannot be sued for any actions related to their job as a prosecutor, no matter how egregious the behavior. For example, prosecutors cannot be sued for knowingly prosecuting an innocent person, withholding evidence of innocence, or even fabricating false evidence of guilt.[/i]

...

[i]Despite prosecutorial immunity’s fundamental flaw, there is only one carveout to this otherwise impervious protection: It does not shield prosecutors from being sued for actions that are not related to advocating for the prosecution, such as acting as an investigator or police detective. In other words, “the actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor.” [/ig]

[URL=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/30/7th-circuit-pokes-a-hole-in-prosecutorial-immunity/]Here[/URL]is another more in depth article covering the most recent case regarding prosecutorial immunity.

Even to this day, prosecutors can effectively act above the law and the constitution itself under extremely loose, nebulous boundaries that are then determined by a judge. Therein lies another concerning factor whereby these high level state positions are all in the same local legal system; people know the right people, there is possible collusion or conflicting interests against the public good or the written law, and personal politics are able to spread their tendrils easily because there simply is no accessible means of oversight.[URL=https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/18/why-dont-prosecutors-get-disciplined]Here is another in depth article on other possible reasons prosecutors are not disciplined[/URL]. There are not even means for those wronged, i.e. "the people," to actually challenge the system in place in a sane manner as a layperson without legal backing because lawyers have their own reasons to not report misconduct such as fear of retributive behavior by the target prosecutor.

Subsequently, laws really[i]can[/i]be picked and chosen depending on those presiding. And those are just a few tidbits I found quickly, but there is a entire rabbit hole of just how truly screwed up our legal system really is behind the scenes.

Why did you delete it?

why be a productive member of society when criminals get slaps on the wrist

I'd prefer a national divorce but our options are limited

There to give an false illusion. Theres people who still believe everything the media says.

Being a leader in government, there are always problems to solve. During this time, Soros financed DAs are being voted into power, in some blue run cities, that have decided to not enforce many laws. As a result crime levels have increased in these blue run areas.

Here in Florida our governor, DeSantis, decided it was best for the safety and welling being to fire a Soros financed DA from the Tampa area. Other governors such as in Illinois, New York, California, etc have decided to not take similar steps.

I did find it odd that in California the governor there, Newsom, has instead of firing the DA in San Fransisco for not enforcing drug laws, is instead calling the California National Guard to police the city.


"Newsom sending National Guard to San Francisco to tackle ******** crisis"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...entanyl-crisis

Also how are we to maintain a democracy with gerrymandering?

It’s basically saying hey we’re gonna lose if we don’t cheat.

We need a serious state/government overhaul from the top to the bottom.

Good luck in the attempt


There has to be 51% or more support for this otherwise we're asking the criminal to self investigate


And both sides should be saying the same chit

Everyone one was afraid of being called a "conspiracy theorist" talking about far left and Soros funded DA's and let them just waltz into institutes of power. This is the result of inaction. The left has zero real opposition, conservatives are complete cucks. It doesn't matter what the law is if you are the one who gets to interpret the laws.

There in lies the problem with conservatives.


They're afraid of being called a Nazi, fascist, xenophobe, transphobe, fat shaming, wtc.

And then there's people like me who don't give a fukk what i'm called partly because A) I just don't give a fukk about peoples opinions and B) i'm not white so they can't attack me for having " white privilege ". And C) i'm super pro 2A, pro small government, pro law enforcement, pro capitalist .


Call me transphobe?

Good, get that c0ck away from me i ain't gay and you're a dude bro.

Call me fascist?

Good, fukk your feelings get TF in line and STFU


Stop being afraid of being called chit, sticks and stones mutherfukkers


Be like Tupac, he didn't GAF and said what he wanted

I never heard of this DA thing until it was revealed that they were Soros backed DAs.

So, that means the DA is getting money from a foreign entity, that's why this is a new thing.

My guess is that the DA pursues the law and justice, so typically in history, they are following the law. But, since it's a new thing to have foreign controlled DAs, they are not pursuing the law and so some state of federal agency ought to be investigating these DAs but is not so far.

Not prosecuting criminals actually reduces crime. You should read some studies on this.