Comments by Bornnbred
Page 1 of 14 | Next
Posted on November 26 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The prosecutor claims they "used violence, including machine-guns, to maintain control over the operation" yet in this story there is absolutely no proof that any violence occurred. In the presentation to the grand jury, the prosecutor can make all the unfounded statements they wish because they are not required to prove anything--they simply have to "convince" the jury that there is a good reason to indict those they are after.
I have been in cases where prosecutors and police have stated that the mere proximity of drugs and guns automatically equates to violence, since "everyone knows that drug dealers use guns to protect their drugs and money". While this may be the case in SOME instances, it is not the case in ALL of them. To believe that there was any violence purely on the word of the prosecutor and the use of the "machine gun" buzzword, is pure folly.
On 12 indicted for running violent trafficking ring in Alaska
Posted on November 25 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Valkyrie: The money referenced in this article is "not in their budget" either, it was a federal grant. I think what Etteloca was suggesting was that the grant be used to sponsor a program that would more directly affect the community in a positive manner, not that the police should "hold your hand".
I have noticed that people are often fallacious when advocating for more police or stricter laws. Arguments that project everything in a fatalistic light seldom do more than sway the weak minded.
Posted on November 25 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Corinne: I believe the first case where this was brought up was State v. Zerkel, 900 P.2d 744 (Alaska App.1995) as well as Garcia v. State 947 P.2d 1363(Alaska App.1997). There are other cases that address this same issue of administrative vs judicial "punishment" and the double jeopardy clause.
Posted on November 25 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wendee: It is because the DMV sanctions against a driver are considered an "administrative" action and are separate and distinct from "judicial" actions. It also the same logic used to circumvent the "double jeopardy" clause in the constitution, most commonly seen in dui cases.
Posted on November 25 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oyegi: Cases from other districts are often looked to for guidance when there are no similar cases in the district in question. They do not have to have been decided in the Supreme Court to have an effect in Alaska.
Posted on November 25 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
np79: So now you're advocating that we cite people for lack of intelligence? Will you be the first in line to take this road-side IQ test? What standard would you suggest be used? Why would you even post such an poorly conceived statement?
Posted on November 25 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As many have already stated, the article is about creating another level of bureaucracy for duties that are already being performed.
Similar arguments concerning staffing have been raised before, if they are unable to hire enough troopers now, how can they expect to fill the positions they need for the new bureau.
I am most interested in hearing someone expound on this comment, “We want the public to buy into this and see the benefit of slowing down and obeying the laws as opposed to just hammering them with tickets,” as it implies that will not be handing out tickets. If they want to get the public to buy into something, try proffering something that makes sense.
Posted on November 25 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They could save time and money by redacting and cataloging the records each month on a web server. People could simply go to the site and download those records they wanted to view.
Posted on November 19 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One comment on here points the finger at voters, but I have yet to see a judicial "reappointment" show up on a ballot that offers any real insight into the judge they're asking you to reappoint. There is plenty of coverage about the ballot initiatives, why isn't there more on the judges that are on the ballot as well.
For all of those posters that come to the aide of "cops" when the subject of corruption comes up, this is yet another example proving what has been stated many times--your employment does not make you who you are.
Page 1 of 14 | Next
Posted on November 26 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
crazy: I never offered an opinion as to what they were--or were not--actually doing. I merely stated that you would be foolish to let your own fears, biases, and the words of a prosecutor to sway you when no proof was ever proffered.
As for the "war on drugs", it is pure rhetoric used to make you believe that there is some larger than life effort being waged. Your acceptance that as long as "there is an effort being made" with respect to the drug problem shows more naivete than you may have intended. Any effort directed at a problem must be a productive effort if it is to have any effect. Over the last 30 years this "effort" has done little to impact the overall problem, indicating that it is not an effective means to address this issue.
In the end as long as there is money to be made, jobs to be created, and power to be had, on both sides of the problem, this "war" will continue as it is not in the interest of those involved parties to end it.
On 12 indicted for running violent trafficking ring in Alaska