Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The latest kerfuffle over the sentence that Roger Stone should receive is a symptom of a much larger problem: the subjective standards of punishment and indictments. The issue speaks to a much larger problem in the entire justice system. For some time now, we have been at the mercy of subjective law enforcement.
As a police officer, I never asked anyone I arrested who they voted for, or the political party they had selected on their voter registration card. Their motivation was not my main concern for a crime that was committed. My only concern was this: did the elements of the law that met the definition of a specific crime had been committed?
Roger Stone is not a rapist or a murderer. The actress Lori Laughlin of the USC scandal is not a danger to society.
While I worked as a police officer there were times that someone offered a rationalization for some action they took that lead to their arrest. Hate crimes fall into this category for me. No matter what the motive for an assault, the injury inflicted carries just as much pain for the victim whether or not it concerns religion, race, or creed.
The politicization of law enforcement allows for a subjective standard that means it’s not the action that matters. What matters is who the perpetrator is, and who the victim is. Other than cheating in the election process, I cannot think of a faster way to tear a nation apart.
As a former police officer, my advice to my fellow citizens would be we need to get off this road now.Published in