Kamala Harris while serving as DA supported pre-trial diversion for violent offenders who punched police

HARK! · Aug 31, 2024

She doesn’t just want to defund the police — she also wants to coddle perps who attack cops.

Vice President Harris supported pre-trial diversion initiatives to suspects who assaulted cops while she served as district attorney of San Francisco, a review of the public record shows.

Harris’ abandoning law enforcers stung all the more because she had come into office pledging to get tough on violent lawbreakers.

“This was Kamala’s first flip-flop,” said one former San Francisco cop who remembered the situation well. “We felt betrayed.”

Kamala Harris while serving as DA supported pre-trial diversion for violent offenders who punched police: records

Vice President Harris supported pre-trial diversion initiatives to suspects who assaulted cops while she served as district attorney of San Francisco, a review of the public record shows.

nypost.com

comana · Sep 1, 2024

I agree with Harris on this.

”In a compromise with Adachi, Harris said misdemeanor assault on a cop could qualify for pre-trial diversion and that punching a police officer could be remediated with counseling and other services — instead of jail time.

“The bottom line is that if a suspect assaults a police officer, he should go to jail, not to class,” said San Francisco police Capt. Kevin Cashman at the time — who noted that punching a prosecutor would still be an immediate one-way ticket to state prison.

Cop assaults that left “visible or substantial or significant injuries,” would still be eligible for traditional prosecution. The policy allowed judges to decide on a case by case basis.”

I have long felt that our justice system relies far too heavily on jail sentences over any sort of remediation. Especially for minor/misdemeanor offenses. Jail is more often than not a one way ticket to a life in and out of jail. Society will rarely let the convicted who served their time back to become financially and socially secure.

FreeinChrist · Sep 2, 2024

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up of off topic post and the responses to the off topic posts.

SimplyMe · Sep 2, 2024

I have to say I agree with this. I've recently watched several videos on YouTube where police go to arrest someone drunk, or just confused about their "rights," and they "fight" with the police when the police attempt to arrest the individual. They aren't really "violent," the underlying crime tends to be things like refusing to identify at a traffic stop (because they don't believe they did anything wrong), or something like drunk and disorderly, or even just refusing to leave (trespass) after being asked to leave.

In these cases, for a person who has no priors, a diversion program sounds like a good idea -- they still have to complete the "punishment," just that after they have completed it and maybe a year goes by they can get the offense removed from their record. Yes, they were wrong, which is why they still get punished; but they shouldn't have their lives "ruined" (a felony permanently on their record) because they had an instance of being idiotic.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but I'm not seeing where this was proposed for "hardened criminals" or even repeat offenders. It also (unless it is somehow different in California) still requires paying all fines and fees, possibly jail time or probation (depending on the seriousness), and even requirements to complete courses such as anger management and/or alcohol/substance abuse treatment. I don't know why anyone would worry about a first offender getting a one time diversion (having the crime removed from their record) after completing whatever sentence was handed down and staying out of trouble before they verdict is removed.

iluvatar5150 · Sep 2, 2024

SimplyMe said:
I have to say I agree with this. I've recently watched several videos on YouTube where police go to arrest someone drunk, or just confused about their "rights," and they "fight" with the police when the police attempt to arrest the individual. They aren't really "violent," the underlying crime tends to be things like refusing to identify at a traffic stop (because they don't believe they did anything wrong), or something like drunk and disorderly, or even just refusing to leave (trespass) after being asked to leave.

In these cases, for a person who has no priors, a diversion program sounds like a good idea -- they still have to complete the "punishment," just that after they have completed it and maybe a year goes by they can get the offense removed from their record. Yes, they were wrong, which is why they still get punished; but they shouldn't have their lives "ruined" (a felony permanently on their record) because they had an instance of being idiotic.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but I'm not seeing where this was proposed for "hardened criminals" or even repeat offenders. It also (unless it is somehow different in California) still requires paying all fines and fees, possibly jail time or probation (depending on the seriousness), and even requirements to complete courses such as anger management and/or alcohol/substance abuse treatment. I don't know why anyone would worry about a first offender getting a one time diversion (having the crime removed from their record) after completing whatever sentence was handed down and staying out of trouble before they verdict is removed.

Because letting your halitosis waft into a cop's mustache is a capital offense, unless the cop is trying to defend the capitol against a bunch of wannabe insurrectionists or kicking some cows off of federal land when the rancher has lost his permit. In those cases, the cops are jackbooted thugs infringing on mah raghts and the offenders deserve to be let off or pardoned.

RileyG · Sep 2, 2024

I don’t trust the left. They always go after law enforcement.

comana · Sep 2, 2024

RileyG said:
I don’t trust the left. They always go after law enforcement.

How is this going after law enforcement? Those who actually harmed a LEO were not offered this program.

RileyG · Sep 2, 2024

comana said:
How is this going after law enforcement? Those who actually harmed a LEO were not offered this program.

I’m just rambling.

I still don’t trust her.

HARK! · Sep 2, 2024

comana said:
How is this going after law enforcement? Those who actually harmed a LEO were not offered this program.

So assault isn't harmful?

RileyG · Sep 2, 2024

HARK! said:
So assault isn't harmful?

I just can’t agree with her on this. Blows my mind.

comana · Sep 2, 2024

HARK! said:
So assault isn't harmful?

Not necessarily. I suppose the cop can get therapy if the minor assault resulted in emotional damage. The perpetrator would still have complete the program to avoid jail.

HARK! · Sep 2, 2024

comana said:
Not necessarily. I suppose the cop can get therapy if the minor assault resulted in emotional damage. The perpetrator would still have complete the program to avoid jail.

We're not talking about verbal assault.

comana · Sep 2, 2024

HARK! said:
We're not talking about verbal assault.

Well if no physical damage then the harm must be emotional. I’m sure you have a point that will come as some sort of gotcha with your word games.

Trogdor the Burninator · Sep 2, 2024

It’s always interesting watching the flip-flopping between the expressions of concern for police versus the playing down of violent actions against those same police during the January 6th protests.

iluvatar5150 · Sep 2, 2024

Trogdor the Burninator said:
It’s always interesting watching the flip-flopping between the expressions of concern for police versus the playing down of violent actions against those same police during the January 6th protests.

Similarly, it’s amusing to juxtapose their revulsion towards “Defund the Police” with their attempts to literally defund the IRS’ enforcement efforts.

SimplyMe · Sep 2, 2024

HARK! said:
So assault isn't harmful?

Go watch some videos of police making arrests on YouTube and see some of the actions that result in assault on a LEO type of charges. It includes things like spitting on police, accidentally "hitting" a police officer trying to avoid the cuffs being put on, etc; things that do not hurt the police officer. It was misdemeanor assault charges that were eligible (did not automatically get) diversion -- not felony assault. Even the Police Union tacitly admitted this, when they "asked" if an assault had to leave a visible mark in order to be charged.

The misdemeanor assault this covered did not harm police officers -- any assault that did actual harm (or had the potential to do actual harm) would have brought felony assault on a LEO charges.

HARK! · Sep 2, 2024

SimplyMe said:
spitting on police

Potentially infecting them with AIDS

SimplyMe said:
"hitting" a police officer trying to avoid the cuffs

Assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

SimplyMe said:
Even the Police Union tacitly admitted this, when they "asked" if an assault had to leave a visible mark in order to be charged.

Does a punch in the solar plexus, dropping one to the ground, and potentially starting a chain reaction of muscle contractions, that can lead to suffocation and death, necessarily leave a mark?

SimplyMe · Sep 2, 2024

HARK! said:
Potentially infecting them with AIDS

That would be aggravated assault.

HARK! said:
Assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

So if you were 21 and got drunk, thought you had a right to do something and argued about police about it, should you have had your life ruined by "assaulting an officer and resisting arrest?" Those are the charges but the "assault," if you watch the body cam videos from the police, is pretty lame. Seriously, you should watch some of these videos and see the "horrible" assaults. For the most part, with what is talked about in the OP, it is trying to keep a police officer from grabbing your arm and accidentally "slapping" the officer's arm or something similar -- and in most cases something they never would have done if sober.

And don't misunderstand me, again, they still get a punishment that fits the law -- just that if they don't commit further crimes they can get the conviction removed from their record a year later. I've seen a few videos of a court in San Antonio, TX; where diversion is often offered for some of these more minor cases of "assault" or "resisting." What you quickly realize is that those who have a real issue with police and the law can't stay out trouble long enough to actually get the diversion -- the conviction stays on their record permanently (as well as the new convictions).

HARK! said:
Does a punch in the solar plexus, dropping one to the ground, and potentially starting a chain reaction of muscle contractions, that can lead to suffocation and death, necessarily leave a mark?

Again, different class of crime -- that would be a felony assault, not misdemeanor.

HARK! · Sep 2, 2024

SimplyMe said:
should you have had your life ruined by "assaulting an officer and resisting arrest?"

Do you think that violent criminals, who ruin their own lives, are victims?

HARK! · Sep 2, 2024

SimplyMe said:
Again, different class of crime -- that would be a felony assault, not misdemeanor.

So the answer is no? A felony assault does not necessarily leave a mark?

When does a punch become a felony assault? What defines the difference in the punches, if not a mark?

Kamala Harris while serving as DA supported pre-trial diversion for violent offenders who punched police

שמע

Senior Veteran

CF Advisory team

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

שמע

Veteran

Senior Veteran

שמע

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

שמע

Senior Veteran

שמע

שמע

Similar threads