Some times you need to side step the constitution to defeat crime.

You can deal with crime and still have rights.

 

I agree with what people were saying for better enforcement of laws and keeping violent criminals locked up.

There should be a 1,2,3 strike rule depending on the crime.

1 Strike for- Murder 1st and 2nd degree, felony murder, attempted murder.

2 Strikes for- Armed Robbery, armed car jacking, aggravated assault, all sex crimes, letting your firearm get into the hands of a criminal, assault on an officer, arson.

3 Strikes for all other felonies.

All drug possession would be lowered to decriminalized.

The only reason that murder is the only thing on 1 strike is so that three's less of a chance that the victims will be killed.

 

Just don't pretend you're any better than some John Wick citizen guy deciding to blow them all to hell extrajudicially, because you're not. Government has precisely no less responsibility to obey the law than the citizenry.

 

Yeah, before they decide to commit treason against the constitution perhaps consider some legal but unpopular options.

 

Crime was lower before the 4th and 5th amendments were applied to the states. The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens.

 

Three words: lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits. We do not think our Constitution is simply a piece of paper.

 

That is already pretty much on the books. But you are focusing on the wrong side.

Community policing, police intelligence, and maximizing resources by law enforcement is one approach. Additionally improving economically disadvantaged areas is another way. But no single way should be done. All should be done.

 

The government has a responsibility to stick to the powers delegated to it by the people and the states. Anything outside of that is just criminality. Granted, criminality can achieve results, just be upfront about what you've become in that case instead of trying to hide behind self-serving platitudes.

 

you mean we should put street cameras on every corner in high crime areas? sure, I am ok with that

then the police can follow up on it, get warrants, etc....

am I for State supported vigilantism... no

 

Why would the police need warrants to use footage from public cameras just go and arrest the criminals and use the footage to lock them up.

 

Because blacks would be overrepresented among those arrested and such enforcement would be considered racist.

 

you get a warrant to search people's property after you learn they committed a crime via video and of course a warrant for their arrest