> As for three strikes, drug possession was one of the top offenses for which it is applied.
But fundamentally the three strikes rule is a bigger issue there than the drug possession charges themselves, the three strikes remove all judicial flexibility and agency.
The state requires me to wear underwear on the bus, put kids in car seats, signal at intersections, keep a gun safely, not let my tires go bald, and many other things to protect people around me.
> If you're in America, you're fucked. One mistake and your marked for life. Be that legal issues, work history, etc. We'll hold that shit against you until you die.
Puritanical standards like this seem limited to the east/midwest; the west coast is much more forgiving (IME).
>If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve to go to jail.
And you deserve to go to jail for longer than a regular citizen should if you do it in the performance of your job. I never agreed to follow any laws, let alone enforce them -- they did.
> the 400 ft rule is totally arbitrary, and enforcing it relies entirely on the word of the police
I mean, any distance is going to be arbitrary. And “people might lie” is a bad reason to reject a rule. (It’s a good reason to raise the burden of evidence.)
>Especially when even for the government, those rules don't apply outside of the criminal sphere.
Which is a travesty seeing as how many various organizations within government can unilaterally take action that will f-up one's life as bad as a nonviolent misdemeanor.
That's even worse than California's three strikes laws.
reply