Comments by "Tx240" (@Texas240) on "Brandon Herrera"
channel.
-
320
-
239
-
98
-
66
-
33
-
29
-
26
-
16
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
@thatdamncrow9197 - You're partly correct. However, being partly correct is also being partly wrong.
Look into the criminal justice system. It's the job of the prosecutor to efficiently use tax payer money to decide which cases are actually prosecutable with a high likelihood of conviction.
This is important distinction to what you implied, to prosecute anyone, because if there is not a conviction, that effort is a waste of taxpayer money and a burden on the court schedule (along with opening up the municipality to lawsuits for defamation).
In the Rittenhouse case, the prosecutor, assistant district attorney Binger, either knew that Rittenhouse was not prosecutable with a high likelihood of conviction (because he was innocent of the charges that Binger levied), Binger is totally incompetent, or Binger was using his role as ADA to pursue his own SJW agenda on the taxpayers dime.
Most arrests do not result in a prosecution. Binger knew their was no case against Rittenhouse AND Binger failed to seek arrests for and prosecute the actual criminals who perpetrated the attack against Rittenhouse.
Because Binger used the 2 living attackers as prosecution witnesses against a man that Binger knew war innocent of what he'd charged him with, it's obvious that of the 2 possibilities I suggest above, Binger is not completely incompetent but was actively pursuing his own SJW agenda and merely appearing completely incompetent in the process.
It is not the job of a prosecutor to prosecute people who they know are innocent, where they know there is insufficient evidence for a conviction, where they know there were police procedure violations, etc.
If your statement is true that it's the prosecutor's job to file charges and prosecute (all) cases, why did Binger not seek the arrest of and then charge the men who attacked Kyle? To this day, Kyle's assailants have not been arrested, prosecuted, or tried.
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jerrysmith2088 - my dad was in law enforcement, industrial security, and personal protection throughout his career.
For a trained and practiced PROFESIONAL, using like force (an expandable baton vs a knife or bat, for example) may be viable and something a court could reasonably expect.
My dad would often get frustrated when cops would shoot people either unarmed, fleeing, or using a melee weapon. His thoughts were that if the professional cop didn't have the training, proficiency or wherewithal to use appropriate force, the cop was in the wrong job.
Heck, even POLICE, armed professionals aren't expected to use like force....and, at least in the US, basically have a license to kill.
As the recent incidents in Canada have shown, draconian gun laws don't prevent crime. They simply turn law abiding citizens into criminals when they try to defend themselves. Criminals don't care what the laws are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1