Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

My intention through this discussion is to not mention the person being indicted - for the fact that I don't want to this to become a debate about personalities and parties, but rather about values, philosophies, and worldview.

With that being said, a former president has been indicted with criminal charges on - what seems to be - the most trivial and flimsily-made case for "criminal" charges that I have ever been beholden too.

Casting aside all preconceived notions of the indictee, and any personal political persuasion, can this really be anything other than a perversion of justice? Please be respectful (myself included) and discuss.

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dd10snoop28 wrote:can this really be anything other than a perversion of justice?

It can.

/end of my contribution to this thread

Folks who wanted Brittney Griner to rot in a Russian cell sure are quick to dismiss the blatant breaking of election laws (and subsequent attempts at cover-ups) here at home. That isn't directed toward anyone here, but generally what I'm seeing on social media today. The mental gymnastics are staggering.

It can.

/end of my contribution to this thread

Agreed, and ditto.

I couldn’t be happier and I was a republican, they lost me on January 6th…….. I hope he faces chargers for his part in that also!

pezsez1 wrote:Folks who wanted Brittney Griner to rot in a Russian cell sure are quick to dismiss the blatant breaking of election laws (and subsequent attempts at cover-ups) here at home. That isn't directed toward anyone here, but generally what I'm seeing on social media today. The mental gymnastics are staggering.

It can.

/end of my contribution to this thread

Agreed, and ditto.

What if I told you that other politicians have actually paid fines for the same [alleged] election violations (but never charged) that are being levied against the indictee? Would you care?

Unfortunately, the responses have not been in the vein I was hoping.... essentially what I am hearing is,"I don't like said person therefore he deserves the charges" with disregard as to whether there has been equal administration of justice or if there is merit to the charges being levied.

Why even post if your response is "I don't like *said person*"?

Considering a previous DA and federal prosecutor had failed to bring charges against him and the new DA is basically bumping the charges up to felonies due the statute of limitations running out on misdemeanor charges, this thing is a farce.

Don’t break the law and you won’t get arrested. That’s what’s been told to me since I was a kid. No reason for someone to get special treatment. Someone mentioned BG earlier and all I heard is she broke the law.

A grand jury of his peers recommended indictment. The DA didn’t do it all on their own. He’ll have a chance to prove his innocence. Who knows maybe another group of his peers will think differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A grand jury of his peers recommended indictment. The DA didn’t do it all on their own. He’ll have a chance to prove his innocence. Who knows maybe another group of his peers will think differently.

Didn't plan on contributing here again, but wanted to thank you for making this point. Nothing matters more than this.

My only contribution is to ponder how this particular incident is apparently far more important to the DA than the rampant escalation of virtually every category of crime in NY since his election to the post...

Not sure what this means? Are you saying the DA is responsible for the crimes in the city? How about the police, mayor or city commissioners?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ElPatoLoco wrote:Not sure what this means? Are you saying the DA is responsible for the crimes in the city? How about the police, mayor or city commissioners?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you genuinely asking?

To answer your question, yes, the DA plays a large part in keeping crime down. It has been well documented that the current DA has been historically bad on (1) bringing charges against dangerous people, (2) lowering charges from felonies to midemeanors, (3) setting low bail, (4) unsuccessful prosecutions. And this is in light of NY experiencing a serious crime way. It should be the opposite.

Case in point is a man who was released on bail the week before and murdered a young lady. If you are legitimately interested, here’s the story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tment.html

My point being it’s easy to point the blame at one person rather than look at the system holistically and see there are multiple parties that affect something like the increase in crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ElPatoLoco wrote:My point being it’s easy to point the blame at one person rather than look at the system holistically and see there are multiple parties that affect something like the increase in crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that's not the point that wounded was making.

The DA has made a concerted effort NOT to pursue some of the most hardened criminals in NY, and has effectively made a mockery of the justice system in a city desperate for law and order. Whether or not he is the sole contribute to the problem is not the question. It is whether the prosecuting DA is looking at justice blindly (i.e. not targeting people based on their own agendas).

In contrast to his negligently soft stance to crimes in his own jurisdiction, he is now pursuing a criminal indictment for a case that had been passed over by previous DA's in New York as a misdeamnor... Then this DA, who publicly made declarations to pursue the indictee before taking office (another perversion of justice), also decided to not pursue any charges originally. Then the statute of limitations ran out on the misdemeanor, and the DA changed his mind (suddenly) and decided to elevate the charges to criminal.

All of that leads us back to the question of "how can this be anything other than a perversion of justice?".