Because of the results of the last election…anyone moving?

[gryghin]

I'm really interested if Schmidt said out loud that the DA's office wasn't prosecuting felon in possession cases, and, if so what the rationale for that decision. If someone can point to a quote in a reputable paper or a recent broadcast where he says that--specifically felon in possession cases--I want to hear it. I understand equity arguments in charging decisions, especially regarding property and public offense crimes--whether you agree or not--because the DA has historically dramatically overcharged everybody to create serious risk for defendants to extract plea deals from them. Some of the charging is for measure 11 crimes where the evidence is pretty skinny, but the risk to the defendant's liberty, long-term, is pretty serious. I've got a buddy who was caught selling something he shouldn't have and when the police searched his home they found a pistol and charged him will selling drugs with a weapon that would have dramatically increased his potential sentence, so he pled guilty with diversion and only got his gun rights restored after 25 years of being an upstanding successful citizen. I know another guy who got charged with DV and pled guilty--even though it was self-defense-- because he didn't want to miss work and he could enter diversion and get the plea expunged.

Maybe they have over-chaged more for brown folks (or at least those that they thought might have gang involvement) but it's pretty clear DA's have done it for everyone, the equity piece is more white folks can afford private counsel to push on the DA to get charges reduced.

OH, hey! Schmidt was just on the radio saying some felony in possession cases have been dismissed. He doesn't want the cases to be dismissed. The problem is there aren't enough PD's and if someone who is charged can't be given a lawyer in a reasonable period of time the court dismisses their case regardless of the DA's preferences. The state has never paid PD's similarly to DA's and state public defense organizations have 30% less PD's then they need. Apparently there really is not process for the DA to determine whether lawyers are available for public defense or not, so the DA's are triaging cases in how they charge them and are not seriously pursuing charges if there wasn't a direct victim, which actually could be felon in possession if the defendant was arrested for some crime without a direct victim. The Constitution also ensures that Defendants' have a right to a speedy trial and a right to counsel too. The criminal justice system only works with two sides.

This what you're looking for?

Multnomah County DA to publish list of dismissed cases due to lack of public defender

Since February, some 285 misdemeanor and felony cases have been dismissed by judges in Multnomah County because there wasn’t a defense lawyer available to appoint to the case.

www.opb.org

 

[gryghin]

Here's another example she your County District Attorney has decided not to prosecute criminals. And yet, if a law abiding citizen does something, they throw the book at them.

Multnomah Co. DA’s office won’t prosecute many arrested in Portland protests

Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced on Tuesday that his office will not prosecute many protesters who have been arrested during recent Portland demonstrations.

oregonlive.com

 

[MichaelH]

Here's another example she your County District Attorney has decided not to prosecute criminals. And yet, if a law abiding citizen does something, they throw the book at them.

Multnomah Co. DA’s office won’t prosecute many arrested in Portland protests

Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced on Tuesday that his office will not prosecute many protesters who have been arrested during recent Portland demonstrations.

oregonlive.com

Because the right to assemble and protest is ALSO protected by the constitution. After being told your protest is illegal and then being arrested for not dispersing or following orders, a prosecution attempt is a waste of time DAs need to prosecute the protesters who were actually arrested for real assault or vandalism.

Honestly, the 2A is sacrosanct but the 1A isn't?

 

[MichaelH]

This what you're looking for?

Multnomah County DA to publish list of dismissed cases due to lack of public defender

Since February, some 285 misdemeanor and felony cases have been dismissed by judges in Multnomah County because there wasn’t a defense lawyer available to appoint to the case.

www.opb.org

Yeah. It's the why folks seem to be misunderstanding. The state isn't adequately funding defense services, also a constitutional guarantee, to ensure that these defendants get a speedy trial, another constitutional right. That results in the COURT dismissing the cases because the defendants don't have representation to go to trial. Releasing the names is intended to alert the public that these folks are going free because of the state not doing what it's required to do.

 

[nwslopoke]

Yeah. It's the why folks seem to be misunderstanding. The state isn't adequately funding defense services, also a constitutional guarantee, to ensure that these defendants get a speedy trial, another constitutional right. That results in the COURT dismissing the cases because the defendants don't have representation to go to trial. Releasing the names is intended to alert the public that these folks are going free because of the state not doing what it's required to do.

That doesn't gel with thousands of gun owner rushing to fall under the current rules to avoid a, "misunderstanding" of the justice system. It's possible you do not understand the implications written in 114, but I can't fathom this DA not wanting to fully display the penalties set in 114 if violated.

 

[gryghin]

Because the right to assemble and protest is ALSO protected by the constitution. After being told your protest is illegal and then being arrested for not dispersing or following orders, a prosecution attempt is a waste of time DAs need to prosecute the protesters who were actually arrested for real assault or vandalism.

Honestly, the 2A is sacrosanct but the 1A isn't?

Where were you when there were gatherings at the state capital in support of 2A, you know exercising 1A in support of 2A? Do you not remember how those individuals were treated by the state?

Why can't they treat everyone equally?

Why is there different treatment for one group versus another?

 

[Soli]

It's the why folks seem to be misunderstanding. The state isn't adequately funding defense services...

Yeah, we don't understand. No one is at fault; there's just not enough money for the state to adequately fund pubic defenders.

If you believe this, which I do not, you're believing a lie.

1) The state, county and city budgets are larger than they've ever been. There is plenty of money; the elected and their bureaucracy CHOOSE not to direct it to public defenders.

2) Those officials and their bureaucracy (including the judiciary) are guided by a social philosophy of decarceration and abolition. At all levels, from redefining crimes out of existence, to reducing the enforcement arm, to making the rules of engagement for those who remain unworkable, to replacing enforcement with "counseling intervention," to a policy of ignoring crime (eg, street racing closing major thoroughfares with zero police response; open air illegal drug dealing; non-existent vandalism enforcement; non-existent burglary enforcement; non-existent car theft enforcement), to directly refusing to prosecute when a crime is committed and someone is arrested, to creating inadequate space resulting in prisoner releases. Because their philosophy literally believes that incarceration is unjust and should be done away with.

3)There have been times in Oregon where both more crime and less money have existed, and we never saw this phenomenon of the criminal justice system refusing to do its job.

"There's not enough money!" is a false excuse, a lie.

Criminals are being let go because the folks with the power to do it believe it's the right thing to do.

 

[Bobbygun]

Yeah, we don't understand. No one is at fault; there's just not enough money for the state to adequately fund pubic defenders.

If you believe this, which I do not, you're believing a lie.

1) The state, county and city budgets are larger than they've ever been. There is plenty of money; the elected and their bureaucracy CHOOSE not to direct it to public defenders.

2) Those officials and their bureaucracy (including the judiciary) are guided by a social philosophy of decarceration and abolition. At all levels, from redefining crimes out of existence, to reducing the enforcement arm, to making the rules of engagement for those who remain unworkable, to replacing enforcement with "counseling intervention," to a policy of ignoring crime (eg, street racing closing major thoroughfares with zero police response; open air illegal drug dealing; non-existent vandalism enforcement; non-existent burglary enforcement; non-existent car theft enforcement), to directly refusing to prosecute when a crime is committed and someone is arrested, to creating inadequate space resulting in prisoner releases. Because their philosophy literally believes that incarceration is unjust and should be done away with.

3)There have been times in Oregon where both more crime and less money have existed, and we never saw this phenomenon of the criminal justice system refusing to do its job.

"There's not enough money!" is a false excuse, a lie.

Criminals are being let go because the folks with the power to do it believe it's the right thing to do.

SPOT ON my friend.

When Patty Perlow the local DA was on KEZI telling us what all they COULDN'T do because of a lack of personnel, all I could think of was the president of the private company I worked for and his favorite saying: "Don't tell me what you can't do. Tell me what you CAN do." Since it wasn't that long ago that Patty was elected, she isn't the least bit interested in telling us what she can do. That will have to wait until the next election cycle.

 

[uberguy]

Because the right to assemble and protest is ALSO protected by the constitution. After being told your protest is illegal and then being arrested for not dispersing or following orders, a prosecution attempt is a waste of time DAs need to prosecute the protesters who were actually arrested for real assault or vandalism.

Honestly, the 2A is sacrosanct but the 1A isn't?

Charges were dropped against many antifa rioters too. Stop the whitewashing.

 

[Mikej]

Yeah. It's the why folks seem to be misunderstanding. The state isn't adequately funding defense services, also a constitutional guarantee, to ensure that these defendants get a speedy trial, another constitutional right. That results in the COURT dismissing the cases because the defendants don't have representation to go to trial. Releasing the names is intended to alert the public that these folks are going free because of the state not doing what it's required to do.

But damn man! We are Numero UNO in the country for bicycles!!!!! So we got that going for us!

50 Best Cities for Biking in the US - Explore

We've researched the 50 best cities for biking in the US, with an in-depth dive on the 10 most bike friendly cities.

www.exploreworldwide.com

 

[Xaevian]

But damn man! We are Numero UNO in the country for bicycles!!!!! So we got that going for us!

50 Best Cities for Biking in the US - Explore

We've researched the 50 best cities for biking in the US, with an in-depth dive on the 10 most bike friendly cities.

www.exploreworldwide.com

And Subarus and Birkenstocks!

 

[Mikej]

And Subarus and Birkenstocks!

I thought Birkenstock's had become passé? Now they wear those awful plastic/rubber things, don't they? Subaru's too. Unless it's an all "EV" of course.

 

[Xaevian]

I thought Birkenstock's had become passé? Now they wear those awful plastic/rubber things, don't they? Subaru's too. Unless it's an all "EV" of course.

Birken crocs?

 

[Mikej]

Birken crocs?

Thats it! Crocs. Disgusting things.

 

[3MTA3]

 

[DE44cal]

We left two years ago!

Oregon will never recover, and will continue to descend to their NEW moniker of "Central California".

Kids schools, firearms, soon will be Hunting Bambi.....

 

[Dwurgy]

Even if somehow this measure gets overturned, the fact is that the majority of people voted FOR it! They don't want to protect their god given rights like we do. Obviously compromise is good for them. I feel this is going to continue to down the path we are on.

This is technically true however it's not like the Measure passed with 65% or more of the vote. It was 50.7%!!!! That is paper thin. 5000 votes! So thin that I wouldn't be surprised if that 5000 number was dumped in the middle of the night. All hope is not lost for the people of Oregon just yet.

 

[DE44cal]

You obviously hadn't lived there for more than 50 years! It's all a matter of ground and pound...

Light rail
Monorail to OHSU
Gill Nets
Gun banning
Oregon FREE healthcare

Just got tired of additional Warming Shelters going in vs road maintenance and the like.

The ballot measures' ALWAY EVENTUALLY PASS! Its all a matter of getting the wording correct to lie effectively.

The more it goes to crap and the more aggressive the Ballot measures are..., the easier it is to sell to the Lefties of that state.

Mark my words....Hunting will be next!

 

[Bobbygun]

Mark my words....Hunting will be next!

THIS.

The real problem is it only takes one vote more than the other side can muster. After hunting gets axed, then we can get after other crucial issues such as:

Motorcycles. Hey, I don't ride one and those guys/gals really annoy me on the freeway. Just another minority we can eliminate with a ballot measure.
Fishing. Hey, I don't fish. Are you kidding me with that hook in the mouth not hurting bit? Another minority we can eliminate with a ballot measure.
Smoking. Hey, I don't smoke. We need to just put an end to that once and for all. Another minority we can eliminate with a ballot measure.
Etc., etc., etc.

What other minorities can we get after?

Just seems like the bar should be a bit higher than one more vote. It wouldn't be such an issue if Oregonians had a more Libertarian view like they did what seems like many, many years ago. Now, everyone wants to be a bully and YOU WILL COMPLY!

 

[MichaelH]

Yeah, we don't understand. No one is at fault; there's just not enough money for the state to adequately fund pubic defenders.

If you believe this, which I do not, you're believing a lie.

1) The state, county and city budgets are larger than they've ever been. There is plenty of money; the elected and their bureaucracy CHOOSE not to direct it to public defenders.

2) Those officials and their bureaucracy (including the judiciary) are guided by a social philosophy of decarceration and abolition. At all levels, from redefining crimes out of existence, to reducing the enforcement arm, to making the rules of engagement for those who remain unworkable, to replacing enforcement with "counseling intervention," to a policy of ignoring crime (eg, street racing closing major thoroughfares with zero police response; open air illegal drug dealing; non-existent vandalism enforcement; non-existent burglary enforcement; non-existent car theft enforcement), to directly refusing to prosecute when a crime is committed and someone is arrested, to creating inadequate space resulting in prisoner releases. Because their philosophy literally believes that incarceration is unjust and should be done away with.

3)There have been times in Oregon where both more crime and less money have existed, and we never saw this phenomenon of the criminal justice system refusing to do its job.

"There's not enough money!" is a false excuse, a lie.

Criminals are being let go because the folks with the power to do it believe it's the right thing to do.

Oh right. Yeah. It's a plot to keep criminals out of jail. What a clever way for people elected to public office to keep their constituents happy while raking in those big campaign donations from affluent junkies, gang members, petty thieves and the mentally ill! I feel so enlightened!

Liberals can be all for social justice but they still want gang members doing drive-bys, bike and catalytic converter thieves, DV perps, thieves and rapists caught, arrested, charged, convicted and jailed. I know not one pinko who doesn't want the dbag who stole her bike to pay because of the thief's unfortunate childhood.

It's more politically palatable to fund prosecutors than indigent defense attorneys, especially for the law and order types, but if PDs aren't funded the system doesn't work.