Reply to Frumin vs. Krucoff vs. that Libertarian

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Frumin vs. Krucoff vs. that Libertarian"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]All you need to know about the RCCA is that it reduces maximum penalties for carjacking and gun crimes at a time when those crimes are rapidly increasing.

Everything else that people say is just motivated reasoning. [/quote]

You are like a dog chasing a bone that was never thrown.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/01/washington-dc-crime-reform-sentencing-fox-news.html[/quote]
That article uses a lot of words to distract from and does not dispute the truth. Here is what the mayor said when she vetoed the bill.

“RCCA reduces sentences for illegally carrying guns on our streets.”

“The US Attorney and I have raised objections that the Council has substantially reduced penalties for robberies, carjacking and home invasion burglaries.”
https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1610676878402256898

Who do you think has more credibility here? The mayor and US Attorney or a hyper partisan liberal activist opinion writer who does not even deny these basic facts but only tries to obscure them through paragraphs of dreck?

Anyway, Frumin now owns every carjacking and act of gun violence in his Ward. What a way to start a career, by jumping off a ledge in a suicide pact.[/quote]

Some valuable context:

"Under the current code, the maximum sentence for armed carjacking is 40 years. That’s the same penalty as second-degree murder, and more than double the penalty for second-degree sexual assault. It is wildly disproportionate to the offense by any standard. No one—not even the most violent and incorrigible offenders—is sentenced to 40 years for carjacking in D.C. The most conservative, tough-on-crime judge would never dream of handing down anywhere close to a 40-year sentence for a single carjacking. Rather, the harshest penalties handed down today run about 15 years. In recognition that some rare cases may warrant even longer sentences, the RCCA authorizes a 24-year maximum sentence for carjacking. That’s nine years longer than the lengthiest sentences today.

But even the 24-year figure misrepresents how harsh carjacking and other sentences can still be. The RCCA allows judges to “stack” sentences in some instances by running them consecutively. It also includes sentence enhancements for offenders who are armed or who have a criminal record (to give just two examples). A felon who commits armed carjacking can be charged not only with armed carjacking but also with possession of a firearm by an unauthorized person and carrying a dangerous weapon. And their sentence can be enhanced due to the prior convictions. Under the new code, a carjacker’s sentence can easily stretch beyond 30 years."

You need to stop lapping up every fecal morsel Tucker casts your way. [/quote]
I am not surprised that you have such a low and pretty sick opinion of the Mayor and US Attorney. In any case, I don’t think they are eating Tucker Carlson’s poop. I surely trust them more than I trust someone like you. [/quote]

They aren’t. You are.

But a more fundamental point - you should trust any or these people or me. Go and read the old and new codes and develop your own opinion.[/quote]
Let me see if I understand this correctly. I believe and trust the Mayor and US Attorney and as a result I am eating Tucker Carlson’s poop?

We elect the Mayor and the President appoints the US Attorney who are then entrusted with ensuring public safety. Instead of trusting these professionals, I should instead form my own opinion that is informed by people who have no other credential than opinion writer and Twitter user? And if I don’t form my own opinion that also is the same opinion as internet opinion haver and Twitter user I am back again to eating Tucker Carlson’s poop?

You can see why people don’t take you seriously. [/quote]

You are parroting Tucker's talking points, not the more limited objections raised by the mayor and the US Attorney.

The Slate article summarizes the position of all but one member of the DC Council and the legion of criminal justice professionals who engaged in the criminal code overhaul over the course of 16 years. If you are really interested, I'm sure you can find your way to their testimony.

The author of the Slate article has a JD from Georgetown, is a member of the MD bar, has published in legal journals, and has been covering issues in DC for the past decade. If you'd like to share your qualifications, we can do a compare and contrast.[/quote]
“I trust the mayor of DC and the US Attorney”, said Tucker Carlson never. [/quote]

DP. You just ignored everything the PP said and picked one small thing. I'll assume you have no real rebuttal.[/quote]
The author is an opinion writer with a JD who has never practiced law, much less criminal law.  How that makes him an expert over the US Attorney I don’t know. [/quote]

Can you find a reference to suggest that the USAO opposed the passage of the RCCA? They had reservations about some aspects, yes. I do. Everyone does. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the law should not have been passed.[/quote]
The RCCA reduces penalties for violent crime, including gun crime. The Mayor and US Attorney raised these concerns and they were not addressed. Decreasing penalties for violent gun crime at a time when violent gun crime is increasing is stupid. This is common sense and not controversial.

“The US Attorney and I have raised objections that the Council has substantially reduced penalties for robberies, carjacking and home invasion burglaries.” 
https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1610676878402256898[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics