Read on Twitter
Riddle me this: If you create a defense of "duress" to misdemeanor criminal offenders who can show they are impoverished, homeless, drug addicts, or mentally ill, will you:
A) Increase those offenses,
B) Decrease those offenses,
C) Have no impact on those offenses
A) Increase those offenses,
B) Decrease those offenses,
C) Have no impact on those offenses
Yeah -- not really a poll, just rhetorical.
We can wait for the results to come in from Seattle if an idiot on the City Council there, Lisa Herbold, manages to pass legislation she is proposing that would create such a defense.
We can wait for the results to come in from Seattle if an idiot on the City Council there, Lisa Herbold, manages to pass legislation she is proposing that would create such a defense.
Is this part of a designed strategy to turn the "oppressed" class into the "oppressors" -- recognizing criminal acts against those who own property as a legitimate expressions of protest? Or is it "starving the criminal justice system beast" by eliminating swath of what it does?
Note to Seattle -- there is a criminal element in communities all across this country that engage in anti-social behavior because they think its fun, and it earns from them more money in less time than bona fide employment. You are inviting them to your city.
