Why are these people not being aressted?

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Gravelface

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 6, 2015
    391
    28
    I-55@I-12
    DA's don't pick crimes to convict. They pick what cases to prosecute. And a DA has an ethical obligation to not prosecute a case he doesn't believe he can win. They don't decide to not prosecute a case because it is a specific crime. They decide based on the specifics of the case.

    As you said before, probation and/or suspended sentence (which is usually part of the probation sentence) is not unusual. But that doesn't happen unless the DA prosecutes a case.

    They pick what cases to prosecute that they have a high probability of convicting.


    You seem to often get caught up with the forest from the trees......
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,710
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    They pick what cases to prosecute that they have a high probability of convicting.


    You seem to often get caught up with the forest from the trees......

    They have an ethical obligation to not pursue a case they don't believe they can win. Do you believe they should prosecute every case that comes into their office?
     

    Gravelface

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 6, 2015
    391
    28
    I-55@I-12
    I believe they pursue cases under the guise of ethics. That further their career. By the time they get a case, officers investigated and found probable charges enough to arrest and or a Judge has found enough probable cause to issue a warrant for the offenders arrest.

    DAs are self serving politicians looking to make themselves appear tough on crime but only when it suits them.

    Your question seems more posed in a perfect world Free from human greed and greased political pockets.

    But, again....I’ve only been dealing with the judicial system for a decade.....maybe my perspective will change and it’ll seem more fair and just in another decade.......


    But directly to answer your question, no, I don’t believe EVERY case should be prosecuted. If we decriminalized non violent minor marijuana possession charges we could clear out a large percentage of the bullsh*t cases clogging our over loaded system. The amount of tax dollars wasted, from the officer logging the weed, sending it to the state crime lab, having them test it, all the attorneys reviewing it, them the actual court case.....astronomical amount of money wasted. Start enforcing laws already on the books so legislators wouldn’t have to convene and waste more money meeting to talk about ways to make society safer. Put actual violent criminals behind bars. But I’m also of the opinion that people are free and should be free to do what they like with their own bodies without the interference of gubment telling them they can’t. As long as they are doing it behind the doors of their own home and not bothering anyone else. Why waste prison space.
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,710
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I believe they pursue cases under the guise of ethics. That further their career. By the time they get a case, officers investigated and found probable charges enough to arrest and or a Judge has found enough probable cause to issue a warrant for the offenders arrest.

    DAs are self serving politicians looking to make themselves appear tough on crime but only when it suits them.

    Your question seems more posed in a perfect world Free from human greed and greased political pockets.

    But, again....I’ve only been dealing with the judicial system for a decade.....maybe my perspective will change and it’ll seem more fair and just in another decade.......

    My question is a legitimate one meant for the real world. A DA has Assistant DA's, Investigators, and Screeners working under him. It usually follows that the bigger the city, the more of each there are. The ADA's don't usually get the case when it comes in. Having enough information for probable case does not mean there;s enough information for beyond a reasonable doubt. So there are screeners who work with the investigators to determine if the case should be accepted or not. That process may include talking to witnesses again or finding new witnesses or getting the autopsy report or talking to the investigating officer/detective or requesting more information from the investigating officer/detective. Would it be reasonable to do away with the screeners and send every incoming case to the ADA's for prosecution in the real world? Or would it be reasonable to say some cases could be devoid of merit should not make it to the courtroom?
     

    Gravelface

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 6, 2015
    391
    28
    I-55@I-12
    I’m saying they are self serving and do everything they can to take the path of least resistance.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,710
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    But directly to answer your question, no, I don’t believe EVERY case should be prosecuted. If we decriminalized non violent minor marijuana possession charges we could clear out a large percentage of the bullsh*t cases clogging our over loaded system. The amount of tax dollars wasted, from the officer logging the weed, sending it to the state crime lab, having them test it, all the attorneys reviewing it, them the actual court case.....astronomical amount of money wasted. Start enforcing laws already on the books so legislators wouldn’t have to convene and waste more money meeting to talk about ways to make society safer. Put actual violent criminals behind bars. But I’m also of the opinion that people are free and should be free to do what they like with their own bodies without the interference of gubment telling them they can’t. As long as they are doing it behind the doors of their own home and not bothering anyone else. Why waste prison space.

    Sorry, this part was added as I was typing the response. to the first part. I can say from experience that a number of 1st offense possessions never make it to the courtroom. Some officers exercise discretion and things don't go any further. Some DA's, as a general rule, won't pursue cases that are only 1st offense possession. The number of people in jail for drug possession whose original charge was drug possession is lower than you may think. Drug possession is a charge a number of PWID cases are pled to. Non-violent minor marijuana possession charges aren't clogging up the system. You're much more likely to find a possession of some other drug before you'll see a simple marijuana possession.

    Let's exclude all cases where the only charge on the arrest is possession of drugs. Should all of the remaining cases move forward.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I’m saying they are self serving and do everything they can to take the path of least resistance.

    If that's the right thing to do, it doesn't matter that it's self serving.
     

    hoggin357

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    43
    6
    Iowa,La.
    I believe they pursue cases under the guise of ethics. That further their career. By the time they get a case, officers investigated and found probable charges enough to arrest and or a Judge has found enough probable cause to issue a warrant for the offenders arrest.

    DAs are self serving politicians looking to make themselves appear tough on crime but only when it suits them.

    Your question seems more posed in a perfect world Free from human greed and greased political pockets.

    But, again....I’ve only been dealing with the judicial system for a decade.....maybe my perspective will change and it’ll seem more fair and just in another decade.......


    But directly to answer your question, no, I don’t believe EVERY case should be prosecuted. If we decriminalized non violent minor marijuana possession charges we could clear out a large percentage of the bullsh*t cases clogging our over loaded system. The amount of tax dollars wasted, from the officer logging the weed, sending it to the state crime lab, having them test it, all the attorneys reviewing it, them the actual court case.....astronomical amount of money wasted. Start enforcing laws already on the books so legislators wouldn’t have to convene and waste more money meeting to talk about ways to make society safer. Put actual violent criminals behind bars. But I’m also of the opinion that people are free and should be free to do what they like with their own bodies without the interference of gubment telling them they can’t. As long as they are doing it behind the doors of their own home and not bothering anyone else. Why waste prison space.


    That sir is spot on to me.Sad that we will never see justice as served many so years ago:(

    Thank you perez.And you are right,the more I read,the madder I get.
    You guys did answer many of my questions.Thanks
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    As a parent who has lost a child I can assure you there is no punishment that will be worse than them knowing they facilitated the situation that killed their child. I say that as a loving parent. Now there are specific kinds of sickos in which this wouldn’t apply. My son’s death was entirely out of our control, and it haunts me and my wife and probably will the rest of our lives. I can only imagine if it were something stupid I had done.

    Additionally,

    Based on what I’m reading possession of weed for personal use isn’t being prosecuted any more even where it’s not decriminalized, so why is it so important to continue to keep it scheduled? Wouldn’t making it legal in all fifty be the smartest and safest solution?
     

    Jadams74

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 16, 2019
    92
    8
    Ponchatoula, Louisiana
    On the news when there's an incident like this this they always give "tips" to not forget your child in the car and the first one is usually "put something important in the back seat so it makes you look back there when you exit your vehicle" and I always think "Something important? You mean something important LIKE YOUR KID? What's more important than your kid?".
    At this point, what the majority of these people are doing has to be deliberate and you're right, they need to be punished.
     

    alecgreen

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2012
    13
    1
    In many states in order to be charged with a high crime like a felony, there has to be intent. The person has to actually want a negative action to occur. There was a case in Mass not to long ago the father went to work with his child asleep in the back seat. In NYC a guy went to work, a Social Worker, child asleep in the back seat. Forget the child was in the car and both children died. NYC and Mass both have similar laws that say there has to be intent to cause harm in order to be charged with a crime. I think this is very misleading because both states also have negligent homicide laws on the books as well. Such as if a drunk driver hit someone or a person running a red light they can be charged with negligent homide or manslaughter. Now here's what I dont know, must there be a qualifying crime preceding the homicide? Like can any driver be charged with manslaughter or does the person have to break the law (run the red light) in order to be eligible to be charged? I think the latter is the case as anyone who has an accident resulting in death would be imprisoned even if it wasnt their fault. Hope this clears things up rather than create more questions.
     

    hoggin357

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    43
    6
    Iowa,La.
    In many states in order to be charged with a high crime like a felony, there has to be intent. The person has to actually want a negative action to occur. There was a case in Mass not to long ago the father went to work with his child asleep in the back seat. In NYC a guy went to work, a Social Worker, child asleep in the back seat. Forget the child was in the car and both children died. NYC and Mass both have similar laws that say there has to be intent to cause harm in order to be charged with a crime. I think this is very misleading because both states also have negligent homicide laws on the books as well. Such as if a drunk driver hit someone or a person running a red light they can be charged with negligent homide or manslaughter. Now here's what I dont know, must there be a qualifying crime preceding the homicide? Like can any driver be charged with manslaughter or does the person have to break the law (run the red light) in order to be eligible to be charged? I think the latter is the case as anyone who has an accident resulting in death would be imprisoned even if it wasnt their fault. Hope this clears things up rather than create more questions.



    That is exactly my point.They have manslaughter but not convicting the child killers.Why
    cant these people be charged with manslaughter,same as dui.Whats the difference.The
    parents say they didn't mean to leave them to die!!!This is kids were talking about,whole
    lives ahead of them,not some adult that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    And to the guy that lost his child,I'm sorry for your loss sir.And no I do not think they
    should go unpunished.Your responsible for your children till 17 ,period.Why are parents
    not going to jail when their 14 yr old hurts someone or burns a church down.20 years
    ago,they would be in jail.I'm trying to get what drastically changed besides the millennial
    and gen x ignorance that would cause our society to not convict these people?

    We have to start at ground 0,the parents.If we believe we can just convict on age,
    then we have bigger problems.If parents started going back to jail for their unruly
    out of control kids,I'm betting society would change overnight!!!!
     
    Last edited:

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    That is exactly my point.They have manslaughter but not convicting the child killers.Why
    cant these people be charged with manslaughter,same as dui.Whats the difference.The
    parents say they didn't mean to leave them to die!!!This is kids were talking about,whole
    lives ahead of them,not some adult that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    And to the guy that lost his child,I'm sorry for your loss sir.And no I do not think they
    should go unpunished.Your responsible for your children till 17 ,period.Why are parents
    not going to jail when their 14 yr old hurts someone or burns a church down.20 years
    ago,they would be in jail.I'm trying to get what drastically changed besides the millennial
    and gen x ignorance that would cause our society to not convict these people?

    We have to start at ground 0,the parents.If we believe we can just convict on age,
    then we have bigger problems.If parents started going back to jail for their unruly
    out of control kids,I'm betting society would change overnight!!!!

    Man slaughter for a dui or dwi has a major component going for it. If you get behind the wheel you fully intended to drive under the influence.

    If you’re a dumb ass and are to interested in snap chatting you privates to you coworkers that you hop out the car forgetting you never took little Angelica to the daycare. I don’t see where you willingly committed a crime.

    No doubt both are stupid and we should definitely discourage stupid but one seems easier to prove in court to me.
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,710
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    RS 14:12 - Criminal negligence
    Criminal negligence exists when, although neither specific nor general criminal intent is present, there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender's conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful man under like circumstances.

    RS 14:32 - Negligent homicide
    A. Negligent homicide is either of the following:
    -(1) The killing of a human being by criminal negligence.
    -(2) The killing of a human being by a dog or other animal when the owner is reckless and criminally negligent in confining or restraining the dog or other animal.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    RS 14:12 - Criminal negligence
    Criminal negligence exists when, although neither specific nor general criminal intent is present, there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender's conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful man under like circumstances.

    RS 14:32 - Negligent homicide
    A. Negligent homicide is either of the following:
    -(1) The killing of a human being by criminal negligence.
    -(2) The killing of a human being by a dog or other animal when the owner is reckless and criminally negligent in confining or restraining the dog or other animal.

    I wonder if section 2 could be used in the event another species killed a human. Bulls tend to have a mean streak, a lot of horses too. Captive wild animals are even more likely to kill. I’m sure it was phrased that way to hold the bully bread owners accountable for not taking enough care with restraining them.
     

    hoggin357

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    43
    6
    Iowa,La.
    RS 14:12 - Criminal negligence
    Criminal negligence exists when, although neither specific nor general criminal intent is present, there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender's conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful man under like circumstances.

    So 14:12 would work for this instance? Correct?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,710
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I wonder if section 2 could be used in the event another species killed a human. Bulls tend to have a mean streak, a lot of horses too. Captive wild animals are even more likely to kill. I’m sure it was phrased that way to hold the bully bread owners accountable for not taking enough care with restraining them.

    There's a separate law that provides exemptions concerning farm animals. (Part of the law is quoted below.) With respect to captive wild animals, I would say a maintained enclosure that would deter people from entering (like a zoo enclosure) would not reasonably viewed as reckless. But I believe an unleashed or unrestrained dog would certainly be included.

    LA R.S. 9:2795.1
    (7) "Inherent risks of farm animal activities" means those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of a farm animal activity, including but not limited to:
    (a) The propensity of a farm animal to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to persons on or around them.
    (b) The unpredictability of a farm animal's reaction to such things as sounds, sudden movement, and unfamiliar objects, persons, or other animals.
    (c) Certain hazards such as surface and subsurface conditions.
    (d) Collisions with other farm animals or objects.
    (e) The potential of a participant to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to injury to the participant or others, such as failing to maintain control over the farm animal or not acting within his ability.

    So 14:12 would work for this instance? Correct?

    Someone recently said everything on this forum could be debated but I would suggest it would apply to most of the scenarios referenced in this thread. I think the "best" argument for this law not working in this incident would be that standard of care is so low that leaving a child in a hot car is not a gross deviation.
     

    Gravelface

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 6, 2015
    391
    28
    I-55@I-12
    Many laws have subjective terminology. Extenuating circumstances also play a part. Was the parent on drugs, left the kid in the because they were high, etc.

    And what is *gross negligence*. As many people that read this forum could all have their own definition.

    I worked a traffic accident with a fatality. Person A was headed south at an intersection waiting to turn left to get on the interstate, their light turned green (not the green arrow), as she proceeded through the intersection a motorcycle traveling north, who also had a green light T-boned vehicle A and he died.

    She caused a death, but it wasn’t deemed due to gross negligence ( turning left on green light ) so no manslaughter, no negligent homicide. It was a tragic consequence to a simple traffic error....failure to yield.


    And not rehash what’s been discussed ad nauseam, is jail the right thing? What if this is the only working member in the family, has other children, what more can you take away from that person whose child died due to negligence?

    Certainly there are cases that a parent fully deserves it, and on the other side of that coin...there are some that don’t.


    The law isn’t black and white, rarely is it equal and certainly it isn’t fair.....
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom