Justice for Officer Sutton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criminal is a risk. Balance that

Just plain the existence of a criminal?

Because no, someone riding a moped on the sidewalk is not enough of a risk to the public to justify a police pursuit.

Police officers should behave lawfully. I expect police officers to behave lawfully. Don't you?

Define lawful. In fact, sane people must define lawful not vomit out an emotional manifesto and call it a law.

Again, here is who’s defining “lawful” in DC. This guy!

I expect our lawmakers to be sane or scrap the Council. Don’t you?

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own definitions of what is and isn't lawful (with a possible exception for Supreme Court justices).

This police officer received due process of law.

That’s also a problem. Because the Council, untrained and politically motivated, with the impulse control of a toddler at a birthday party, does get to define what is lawful in DC. That lands us in a situation where some opinions are far more “equal” than others. So yours is valid and tinged with moral outrage but mine and that of in fact vast majority of law abiding citizens is not.

I got you on lawful/just so I think we are done here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criminal is a risk. Balance that

Just plain the existence of a criminal?

Because no, someone riding a moped on the sidewalk is not enough of a risk to the public to justify a police pursuit.

Police officers should behave lawfully. I expect police officers to behave lawfully. Don't you?

Define lawful. In fact, sane people must define lawful not vomit out an emotional manifesto and call it a law.

Again, here is who’s defining “lawful” in DC. This guy!

I expect our lawmakers to be sane or scrap the Council. Don’t you?

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own definitions of what is and isn't lawful (with a possible exception for Supreme Court justices).

This police officer received due process of law.

That’s also a problem. Because the Council, untrained and politically motivated, with the impulse control of a toddler at a birthday party, does get to define what is lawful in DC. That lands us in a situation where some opinions are far more “equal” than others. So yours is valid and tinged with moral outrage but mine and that of in fact vast majority of law abiding citizens is not.

I got you on lawful/just so I think we are done here.

Who elected the DC Council? The voters. Do you have a problem with democracy too?

[Anonymous]

They didn’t. Primary voters did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash to the “a jury convicted him” crowd. (Btw, in a unique political moment in history. Overcorrections happen. Not to be facetious? But ever been to Salem?).

There is NO appetite to sentence him. He will not see the inside of a jail.

Again, terribly sorry about the death as I’m sure is the cop. But it’s not a just conviction albeit it might still be lawful at this moment in time

December 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash to the “a jury convicted him” crowd. (Btw, in a unique political moment in history. Overcorrections happen. Not to be facetious? But ever been to Salem?).

There is NO appetite to sentence him. He will not see the inside of a jail.

Again, terribly sorry about the death as I’m sure is the cop. But it’s not a just conviction albeit it might still be lawful at this moment in time

December 2022.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They didn’t. Primary voters did.

Primary voters aren't voters? There's no general election in DC?

[Anonymous]

DC votes homogenously like North Korea in the 90%s. That’s great in direct voting against Trump. Less great when one party and its inside machinations produce the candidates, who then win by default.

That’s why we are discussing election reform.

I’m not a party person albeit never voted GOP. So, I don’t get a vote at all. It’s irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

I personally don’t see the purpose of the Council. It’s a uniquely DC distraction.

Particularly when the members are not well educated or even sane to be qualified to mage these laws.

[Anonymous]

Council v People: what the Council cares about and how it all plays out w no chase.
ps
What about the ATV noise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash to the “a jury convicted him” crowd. (Btw, in a unique political moment in history. Overcorrections happen. Not to be facetious? But ever been to Salem?).

There is NO appetite to sentence him. He will not see the inside of a jail.

Again, terribly sorry about the death as I’m sure is the cop. But it’s not a just conviction albeit it might still be lawful at this moment in time

December 2022.

What was unique in 12/22?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council v People: what the Council cares about and how it all plays out w no chase.
ps
What about the ATV noise?

The cops are lucky the criminals were dumb enough to stop their car. Had they kept driving they could have crashed and gotten the police arrested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council v People: what the Council cares about and how it all plays out w no chase.
ps
What about the ATV noise?

The cops are lucky the criminals were dumb enough to stop their car. Had they kept driving they could have crashed and gotten the police arrested.

So you're either too dumb to recognize that in response to violent crime they are allowed to chase, or you're being disingenuous. We see you.

[Anonymous]

I read the No Chase Policy in Allen’s bill. It’s right after the No White Supremacy chapter. Have you?

I even consulted a lawyer. As written, there is no circumstance under which a cop can chase a violent criminal and be sure the cop won’t end up in prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council v People: what the Council cares about and how it all plays out w no chase.
ps
What about the ATV noise?

The cops are lucky the criminals were dumb enough to stop their car. Had they kept driving they could have crashed and gotten the police arrested.

Interesting how she dodged the point the responder was making "the cops are lucky". Which means society got lucky we should have more tools than "luck" to ensure the safe city she claims to desire .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council v People: what the Council cares about and how it all plays out w no chase.
ps
What about the ATV noise?

The cops are lucky the criminals were dumb enough to stop their car. Had they kept driving they could have crashed and gotten the police arrested.

Interesting how she dodged the point the responder was making "the cops are lucky". Which means society got lucky we should have more tools than "luck" to ensure the safe city she claims to desire .

Perhaps an awareness program to teach people their rights during a police encounter.