it's my argument that many laws are not zero tolerance, and some are meant to not be enforced universally or even predominantly.

on this issue of immigration specifically it's my opinion that families caught together should be housed together. and that all those caught should be detained.

you said all laws are supposed to be enforced, and all laws are zero tolerance. when i challenged these very basic falsehoods you doubled down and claimed the laws needed to be rewritten. its just ignorant of how laws work, your reply to beowulf was lazy and factually incorrect. and unnecessary. of course we have to detain all illegals we capture trying to cross the border, even asylum seekers, as they await trial for asylum. anyone suggesting we don't detain them and just let them into the US willy nilly isn't worth talking to.

When Republicans play ball and something is done to allow families to stay together during the process because of the intense scrutiny how are you going to feel about it?

Thats the way the law was before the ninth circuit changed it.

Democrats purposely changed the law to try and gain a concession and make it a media issue that they could push.

That is the way laws work though. Its not like im unaware of the human element that happens with police officers and judges.

Youre still following the law with zero tolerance because youre doing exactly what the law says. The law just leaves room for discretion in those cases.



They are writing legislation right now. What is your point?

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jun 18 2018 01:07pm

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/392756-poll-kim-jong-un-has-higher-approval-among-republicans-than-pelosi

What's that old saying? Familiarity breeds contempt?

i'm just confused by what this even means. most "catch all" laws are the exact opposite. and are used by officers to detain people after they've failed to find evidence of a larger crime, but a bad situation is present.

like if an officer responds to a domestic dispute where no blows have been exchanged, but it looks like that might happen after the officer leaves. they detain the man or the woman on disorderly conduct and after a night in the drunk tank charges are dropped and the person let go. or threaten it to get one or both to leave the house and stay elsewhere for the night.

whereas in zero tolerance jurisdictions with mandatory arrests for the vague language in domestic dispute ordinances one person must be arrested, and in most cases charged. this leads to more arrests based on the language of the crime.

resisting arrest is another charge in lieu of other charges catchall.

the basic idea of a "catch all" law is that it has vague language, that the officer can choose to apply with discretion. the officer decides on the scene who they want to arrest, because the law and it's overlybroad language apply to many more encounters than they arrest for. Most "disorderly conduct" laws would allow cops to arrest about 50% of the people they encounter, legally, by the language of the law. but then it would get taken away if they abuse it, such as happened with stop and frisk laws.

My definition of "zero tolerance" is that the law is enforced exactly as it is written. If the law says in it that it leaves room for discretion, then I'd still say its enforced with "zero tolerance."

The reason for this is that without explicit laws, the justice system would be simply people doing what they want. By your definition, Trump could use concentration camps and gas people because its all under his "discretion." None of us want that, hence the "zero tolerance" nature of laws

Do you have access to any specific wording of the domestic/disorderly laws?

whoa. i see your issue now. you simply don't understand the concepts and definitions at play.

Zero tolerence = applied in every case it fits factually (honestly i think you're close-ish on that one, but skewed by the next one)

Discretion isn't "written into the law". there is no language that says "police officers to use at their discretion". The laws are purposefully left vague, so the officer can use discretion in when to apply them. that's a small but very important difference. the discretion isn't IN the law, it's a result of the law, because the law is vague.

here is new yorks:



take note of all the intentionally vague language.

intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm (intent to annoy? planned parenthood or westboro baptist church anyone?)

He makes unreasonable noise (ummm wat? what decibel? etc)

Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons (basically every Jordan Peterson or Shapiro speech ever)

its all vague on purpose. designed that way 100%

ICE isn't breaking up families just to be nasty. They are putting the parent(s) in jail.
Are you suggesting they should put the kids in jail too?

So trump wants to be president skroob with a 'separate but equal" space force. Hm.

It's not necessary to enforce with zero tolerance. It's counter productive because you lose support from reasonable people that are with you somewhat on border security

It's a political problem even for a President that gets away with just about everything. That's why he lies and warps the narrative about it even though it's related to an issue that many are with him on

I am of the opinion that zero tolerance creates more of an issue than it aims to combat. It's also below decency standards to treat children that way.

My suggestion is to stop zero tolerance, it truly serves no one and solves nothing.