Desmond Pratt, a former homicide detective and now a district cop, remained in jail Thursday morning, after being booked on charges of forcible rape. (Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office)

Sheriff: Jail Video May Have Been Doctored

New Orleans Sheriff Marlin Gusman says a video of disturbing behavior and conditions in a New Orleans jail was recorded in 2009, in a now-closed facility. Gusman also questioned the video’s accuracy.

Yet, he doesn’t substantiate his suspicion of the video at all. He just says it looks like it’s been played with. Sorry, I’m not convinced yet.

priceofliberty:

freexcitizen:

animalsandguns:

miss-revolt:

 

It is unconstitutional. It doesn’t say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they’re a felon.”

If some one can’t be trusted with a firearm, they should never be let out of jail.

Did you know that if you go to prison for over a year for possessing 3 grams of marijuana, upon your release you become known as a “felon?”

Oh, it’s worse than that. In Texas, your right to bear arms is taken away from you if you’re charged with simple “disorderly conduct”, which as we know, is a vague blanket term that truthfully means: “contempt of cop”.
By threatening to take away your fundamental, constitutional rights, they whip you into submission. They look for reasons to put you in that system so they can restrict your life and control your movement and behavior. After all the money spent, how could anyone at this point believe that the criminal justice system is trying to help and rehabilitate people? It’s not. It’s simply fighting for its own survival.
By taking away guns, you increase the violent crime and you perpetuate the enslavement of people and the destruction of their rights. Thus, the system lives another day.
But the sad part is that most people locked away for drug charges plead guilty for their “crime”.
Do you know how much damage it would do to the criminal justice system if everyone charged with a crime said “Not Guilty” and demanded a full jury? Suffice it to say, marijuana, and probably many other drugs, would become decriminalized very very quickly. The police state would lose a lot of money.
Top that off, but jurors need to be made fully aware of nullification and their power to disagree and to disregard the law where they see fit, rather than have the judge coercing them into doing what he wants them to do.

priceofliberty:

freexcitizen:

animalsandguns:

miss-revolt:

 

It is unconstitutional. It doesn’t say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they’re a felon.”

If some one can’t be trusted with a firearm, they should never be let out of jail.

Did you know that if you go to prison for over a year for possessing 3 grams of marijuana, upon your release you become known as a “felon?”

Oh, it’s worse than that. In Texas, your right to bear arms is taken away from you if you’re charged with simple “disorderly conduct”, which as we know, is a vague blanket term that truthfully means: “contempt of cop”.

By threatening to take away your fundamental, constitutional rights, they whip you into submission. They look for reasons to put you in that system so they can restrict your life and control your movement and behavior. After all the money spent, how could anyone at this point believe that the criminal justice system is trying to help and rehabilitate people? It’s not. It’s simply fighting for its own survival.

By taking away guns, you increase the violent crime and you perpetuate the enslavement of people and the destruction of their rights. Thus, the system lives another day.

But the sad part is that most people locked away for drug charges plead guilty for their “crime”.

Do you know how much damage it would do to the criminal justice system if everyone charged with a crime said “Not Guilty” and demanded a full jury? Suffice it to say, marijuana, and probably many other drugs, would become decriminalized very very quickly. The police state would lose a lot of money.

Top that off, but jurors need to be made fully aware of nullification and their power to disagree and to disregard the law where they see fit, rather than have the judge coercing them into doing what he wants them to do.

back to top