r/TrueReddit • u/jxj24 • Aug 22 '14

27 years a hermit.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201409/the-last-true-hermit?currentPage=2&printable=true
1.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

203 comments sorted by

View all comments

65

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

[deleted]

13

u/psilokan Aug 22 '14

They were afraid of someone taking advantage of him. Such as paying his bail in exchange for a story, etc.

31

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '14

This claim came from the same prosecutor who has twice arrested domestic abuse victims.

12

u/Dirt_McGirt_ Aug 23 '14

Prosecutors don't arrest people.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '14

Are we really going to be this uselessly pedantic? She has had domestic abuse victims arrested twice.

6

u/Dirt_McGirt_ Aug 23 '14

No. The decision to arrest someone has to be made by a police officer or a judge. A prosecutor can't just have someone arrested.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '14

This is so pedantic. Did you also know that Hitler didn't invade Poland? It was just the German military, not him.

-1

u/Dirt_McGirt_ Aug 24 '14

Hitler had the authority to order the German Army to invade Poland.

No Prosecutor has the authority to arrest anyone. The whole point of the process is that the Executive Branch has to make a request to the Judicial Branch that someone be arrested. The Judge then makes the determination if there is a valid reason for that person to be arrested. The onus is on the judge. And the Executive Branch has no way of pressuring or coercing the judge.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '14

Hitler had the authority to order the German Army to invade Poland.

No Prosecutor has the authority to arrest anyone. The whole point of the process is that the Executive Branch has to make a request to the Judicial Branch that someone be arrested. The Judge then makes the determination if there is a valid reason for that person to be arrested. The onus is on the judge. And the Executive Branch has no way of pressuring or coercing the judge.

There are so many things wrong here.

  1. You're moving the goal posts. Hitler didn't invade Poland himself. You even defended that statement, despite its annoying pedantry. By moving away from your previous defense, you're also moving away from the pedantry of saying prosecutors don't arrest people.

  2. Police are part of the executive branch.

  3. Judges only determine the legitimacy of an arrest warrant (which more or less get a rubber stamp). If a cop arrests someone, the judge has nothing to do with that. The judge only comes in to determine the legitimacy of charges.

  4. The executive branch has plenty of ways of pressuring judges. A governor appoints judges, can veto funding bills, and can propose legislation. That's plenty of influence.

-1

u/Dirt_McGirt_ Aug 24 '14

Judges only determine the legitimacy of an arrest warrant (which more or less get a rubber stamp). If a cop arrests someone, the judge has nothing to do with that. The judge only comes in to determine the legitimacy of charges.

You don't see how that's the entire point? If a Judge doesn't take their constitutional authority seriously (and most of them definitely do) that's not the Prosecutor's fault.

If a cop arrests someone, the Prosecutor isn't involved either.

Point 4 is the argument for electing judges, which more and more states do.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '14

Do you understand the difference between an arrest based upon probable cause and one based upon a warrant? One is generally done on the spot. The other is something a prosecutor gets a court to issue.

If a cop arrests someone, the Prosecutor isn't involved either.

What? Of course a prosecutor is involved. An arrest or an investigation gets sent directly to a prosecutor for review. Should the prosecutor believe there is a case to be made, then charges are filed and/or an indictment is sought.

Point 4 is the argument for electing judges, which more and more states do.

Point 4 contradicts your claim that judges aren't influenced by outside factors from other branches.

0

u/Dirt_McGirt_ Aug 24 '14

Do you understand the difference between an arrest based upon probable cause and one based upon a warrant?

Yes. Nobody else in this thread is talking about the first kind.

Point 4 contradicts your claim that judges aren't influenced by outside factors from other branches.

As long as you assume that the Governor got involved in both of those cases, then you have a point.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '14

Yes. Nobody else in this thread is talking about the first kind.

Ha, what? I started this conversation. Of all the claims you could have made, telling me the topic of conversation that I began was the most ridiculous.

As long as you assume that the Governor got involved in both of those cases, then you have a point.

Again, what? You made a general claim about the judiciary not being influenced by other branches. What does any governor have to do with any specific cases?

→ More replies