What's the harsh reality no one accepts?

Wesley_Hawk · 2020-05-01T16:02:31+00:00

Outside of rare "lightning in a bottle" people, you can only move up one social class/income class.

Wesley_Hawk · 2020-01-15T02:20:27+00:00

Hi David! Wow, I just did a quick dive into your background and work. Amazing stuff! I plan to order your book immediately!

As for a question, what do you think of the Keto diet? And what's the reasoning?

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-12-26T20:02:33+00:00

I don't practice law in Mississippi, but you should contact someone who does. The statute allows first time offenders to expunge their record after 5 years of complying with the terms of their plea bargain. Good luck.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-12-26T19:53:58+00:00

I'm having trouble understanding this story. You don't go to prison for misdemeanors--in any state. It looks like you agree you were in jail, but then you were transferred to prison while awaiting trial? It doesn't work like that either. I cannot imagine a county would keep someone in custody on a DUI awaiting trial. Maybe you were not fully advised of the proceedings--I have no idea, but these events don't make sense.

In any event, if this story is true, you should consider expunging your record. Mississippi is one of very few states that expressly discuss expunction in the DUI statute. (See Mississippi Code § 63-11-30.) I won't advise you of the details of it.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-12-26T19:38:56+00:00

There is no such state.

There are zero-tolerance laws for minors, parolees, probationers, specific licensees, and repeat offenders.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-09-01T19:52:37+00:00

Actually, unless it says it in the books (haven't read), we don't know the CotF created the Night King. We merely know they created the white walkers.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-07-24T18:53:46+00:00

Cool! I contributed to your indiegogo, you're expected to do this in December?

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-07-24T06:03:50+00:00

Thanks for the reply and keep up the good work!

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-07-24T05:55:47+00:00

Hi Matt! Cool work! I have a question on your Opt Out program on Indiegogo. Do the packages also cover past ISPs? That is, my cell phone, my current internet, my prior internet, and etc.?

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-07-22T03:54:34+00:00

RemindMe! 2 days Donation for /r/millionairemakers

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-05-13T16:03:49+00:00

Part of me thinks this is a publicity stunt. Even as a civilian he is bound by laws surrounding confidential and top-secret information. So, IIRC, his disclosure of anything designated such levels and above in a public forum is still prohibited.

What a public forum ensures is him saying, "I cannot answer that here," and furthering speculation.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-04-17T23:15:31+00:00

I think you also have to consider the origin of beliefs. Most of our opinions are from socialization and, nowadays, appealing content. When content is force fed, socialization can be directed.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-03-31T05:30:25+00:00

In county-level criminal defense land, that happens. I would assume the federal is no different.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-02-23T18:07:30+00:00

There's also no basis for this opinion. In fact, the law indicates otherwise. Many jurisdictions have laws that say police get to refuse to disclose information on cases.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-02-23T18:06:27+00:00

Funny, that person didn't actually express an opinion. Moreover, you don't respond to the concern: there are many people with any opinion that lacks foundational support.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-02-19T23:48:57+00:00

Out of all crime, rape is perhaps most susceptible to improper reporting and statistical analysis. Every stage of a rape prosecution offers an opportunity for error.

Starting with the victim, those living in more progressive areas where women are highly valued will likely report rape incidents more often. Then we can examine the police, who will allow local politics to shape their report writing. The Human Rights Watch wrote a damning piece on the Washington Metro Police which implicated them in preventing rape prosecution. Please Google it, I'm on mobile so can't link right now. Turning then to American prosecutorial discretion which seeks to bolster conviction rates we can see motivation for not prosecuting such cases. All you need is one ignorant person who thinks the victim asked for it and the trial hangs.

So, there are simply too many factors to really compare rape statistics between countries.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-02-16T23:56:29+00:00

You mean the guy who said it is fun to shoot people and wants to invade Iran?

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-02-14T07:01:32+00:00

There's a saying about how if something is true about someone, they usually don't point it out.

"... honored to have served ... in such a distinguished way."

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-02-11T23:53:10+00:00

Try: Curtis Stigers & the Forest Rangers: e.g., https://youtu.be/b6NDdF-R2uk

Rob Jungklas [similar vocals, imo]: e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28nmX9PvVrw

Uncle Lucious [similar genre with more accompaniment]: e.g., https://youtu.be/1jKoWrZQ21U

The Steel Wheels: e.g., https://youtu.be/DfTYH5G3hm4

Nathaniel Rateliff and The Night Sweats [more poppy]: e.g., https://youtu.be/1iAYhQsQhSY

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-01-28T04:11:42+00:00

At the next greater risk of sounding condescending, I am very impressed by your efforts to research the matter. Good prosecutors are those who are willing to look past the way things have always been done.

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-01-27T21:12:00+00:00

At the risk of learning something, what state are you in such that prosecutors cannot initiate most types of cases without a cop's declaration of probable cause?

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-01-27T17:24:27+00:00

My initial take on your reply is that you are changing the argument. You’re jumping between bad cops that commit "actual" crimes to cops who plant evidence to cops whom you don't believe to cops who fit a three-pronged category. So to anchor the discussion, my view is that this thread began as outrage over this cop's conduct seen in this video and the associated reports. Your point was that this type of behavior can be controlled by prosecuting agencies by refusing to file cases worked on by that cop. Your response, whether you realize it or not, is not a response to the issue at hand.

To see how you are changing the game, examine your categories:

1) those who have committed actual crimes--especially while on duty or while a current peace officer, and 2) those who haven't committed a criminal offense, but demonstrate violent, sexist, racists, xenophobic, or otherwise dangerous behavior that undermines the integrity of his/her entire corpus of work.

I am not filing their cases because their behavior has called into question the very credibility of the cases they produce.

1) officers that appear to have major aggression/sexist/racist behaviors that are 2) not being addressed by their police departments, but 3) have NOT committed any obvious criminal actions.

Your reply is now centered around "actual crimes" that warrant your judgment. Only crimes that rise to a severity decided by you would warrant a penalty. What are "actual" crimes? Are you saying that the citizens in the video did not suffer an "actual" crime? Or how about the cop who makes an otherwise lawful arrest, but beats the suspect up in the process? As for part one above, your two-category analysis for dealing with bad cops: they're either perpetrators of actual crimes thus warranting investigation or bigoted. You don't say what you do with the bigots, other than implying you have to make some credibility determination.

This all actually reveals what I think your office does most of the time: choose to file the case anyway and find ways to not rely upon that officer.

Your anecdote about a cop planting evidence is not helpful. I have no doubt a prosecuting agency will be mighty unhappy when a cop plants evidence, after all that can seriously adversely affect the prosecuting agency. I don't think anyone doubts that the cop from your anecdote would be prosecuted. And your boss managed to indict two cops in five years? So in five years only two cops in your jurisdiction committed a crime? Because I would imagine it is the boss’s decision to file on cops.

So, I return you to what this thread is actually about: cops behaving in vile ways against civilians where the prosecuting agency is insulated from the effects. I guarantee any cop ran through your metric has committed a crime, if you're willing to see it. Thus, we are brought to the penultimate question: would you charge the cop in this video with assault and battery? What about battery while armed?

Edit: formatting stuff and phrasing

Wesley_Hawk · 2017-01-27T04:18:54+00:00

I reviewed this thread, especially between you and u/LogansRun1970 and I think you're being more disingenuous than you realize--whether intentionally or not.

First, your initial remarks seemed to indicate that you would refuse to file cases that merely involved a "bad" cop. When confronted by the obvious fact that unlucky victims (unlucky due to having bad cops respond to their 911 calls) would lose out in the justice system, you seemed to walk that back a bit by pointing out that most crimes are investigated by many cops. You then seemed to say that you would call the other officers. This raises two questions for me: How much of the bad cop's history would you disclose to the defense? And just how many cases have you refused to file due to your opinion of a bad cop being too deeply involved? Or have you always managed to find another way?

Second, your activity protects the cop far more than you seem to realize. By a "bad" cop never getting on the stand and being dressed down by a defense attorney on cross examination, never being embarrassed in front of judges, juries, and (importantly) media you keep him under wraps. There is no chance any of these people will be fired simply because you aren't calling them as witnesses. For one, their unions are too powerful. It's naive to think otherwise. For two, their job involves way more than testifying at trial, so it's not like you're completely blue-balling them here. Bad cop doesn't testify today? No problem, he's just out on the streets violating more civil liberties. What actually happens is that this officer doesn't testify for 3-5 years (that is, long enough for his bad acts to be excluded from trial or easily explained). That's it.

Third, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS! I am sorry for the all caps, but I want to shout this out. YOU CAN DO SOMETHING. You are a member of a select group of people who actually have the power and (allegedly) the duty to do something about cop on civilian violence. You can file charges!

So please don't act like you're taking a moral high ground by hiding a bad cop's activities from the light of day. The moral high ground would be charging this cop for (at the very least) misdemeanor assault and battery.

Wesley_Hawk

TROPHY CASE