Reply #48: do, please, grow up

[iverglas]

"I recall a case not too long ago where a vagrant was shot and
killed by police. His crime? Taking 'complimentary' condiment
packages from the food service area of a 7-11. They considered it
to be shoplifting."

And a crime it quite likely was, although likely of the de minimis kind where I come from. The law does not concern itself with trivial matters; nor do the police, generally speaking.

But what the fucking hell does this have to do with any SYSTEM, different or otherwise, when the SYSTEM we are talking about is the SYSTEM in which people are charged, tried and convicted or acquitted of offences?

Is it part of your "system" that the police get to shoot shoplifters on sight? No? What a surprise.

So what exactly does the shooting death of a shoplifter at the hands of a cop have to do with THE SENTENCES GIVEN OUT BY THE COURTS FOR SHOPLIFTING? The latter being what I was actually talking about.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me a tale of a paying customer being shot by a shopkeeper who had gone mad and believed that red-headed people were the children of Satan ... and pretend that this has some relevance to THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

"I also recall several cases where under 'three strikes' laws,
people received life sentences for very minor crimes."

Indeed, you've hit on a big difference there. We call all but a few mandatory minimum sentences "cruel and unusual" ... and unconstitutional.

But gosh, did you somehow manage to miss what I said, despite it being right there in black and white or whatever your colour preference is?

It was, and I quote from the post you were "responding" to -- and I heavily accentuate the part you have pretended wasn't there:

Provide evidence of anyone who has ever been sent away for 2.5 years for possession of a spiked wristband, in the absence of some seriously aggravating circumstances (which I doubt you'd find anyway).

Now, if the fact that the possession of a spiked wristband were a "third strike" WOULD NOT BE a "seriously aggravating circumstance", I'll eat my own haberdashery.

And, you see? Verbosity is a wise course of action. I've pretty much always already said what needs to be said, and need almost never go back and qualify what I've said and be left dodging a disingenuous allegation of "back-pedalling". Wise, doncha think? It's all there, whether you read it, understand it or acknowledge it, or not.

"It's also not uncommon for judges here to give stiff sentences for
minor crimes, and suspend the sentence subject to 'good behavior'."

So I guess I'll just keep waiting for someone to provide that evidence of a specific thing that I requested, and chow down on some generalizations and scarlet seafood in the interim to try to stave off that hunger for the truth.

.

"Dance for us, my clever little boot, my men are tired,
and need cheering up."

Ah yes. Diversionary grooming. Caught assuming the entire world is male, so a bit of patronizing sexism must be the best way to pretend it wasn't important ...

.