Quote of the day—Julia Musto

Criminal justice reform is a lot like gun control. It’s not about changing the rules for everyone. It’s about selectively enforcing them along political lines.

So for example, the left will lecture you for hours about gun crime and how afraid they are of guns and they hate guns and guns are bad. But they don’t really feel that way. They oppose stop and frisk, which saved thousands of lives by taking many thousands of guns off the street. But they’re totally opposed to that.

Meanwhile, they’re working deep into the night, for example, to disarm law-abiding Virginians in rural Virginia who commit essentially no violent crime and are a threat to no one.

They’re not for gun control. They are for punishing people who don’t vote for them, and the same thing is happening here.

The left doesn’t want criminal justice reform. If they did, they’d be on Roger Stone’s side. No. What they really want is to send their political enemies to jail and that’s what they’re trying to do.

Julia Musto
February 15, 2020
Tucker Carlson: Roger Stone case is about the left wanting to send political enemies to jail
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Julia Musto

  1. Stop and Frisk is likely opposed because stopping a black man on the street and searching him for weapons without ANY probable cause somehow racist(it is), but the idea that police can stop and illegally search ANYBODY else without probable cause is the real issue and it takes a back seat to beating that racist drum.

    • The “Stop and Frisk” policy wasn’t as open as “you can stop anybody at anytime and frisk them for weapons”. Unfortunately, there was a bit of this, and the ability of cops to follow the rules in such cases leaves a bit to be desired.

      IIRC, they had to have an articulated reason to stop the person, in NYC that could be “You are loitering on a street corner and I suspect you of selling drugs.”

      The telling point of this, isn’t the number of (insert PC term for that minority) stopped and frisked, it was the number of them that were stopped, frisked and then *arrested*.

      They were not arrested because of the suspicion, they were arrested because they were found to have something on their person that was illegal. Part of the problem was that often they were found with “personal use” amounts of pot and such.

      Of course, in many cases, the guy on the corner only had personal use amounts at any time, because there is a runner that brings him the next sale after every sale. At no time does the runner or the seller actually have that much on them, thus avoiding the penalties for dealing.

      The racist part strikes me as very similar to the reports of the NJ(PA?) state police issuing more speeding tickets to (PC Term) than whites by percentages. This was statistical proof that police where racist and targeting (PC term) for harassment.

      After losing in court, somebody put up speed cameras on the turnpike. The cameras took pictures of anybody speeding and the resolution was good enough to be able to identify the driver. Turns out that the percentage of speeders that were (PC term) was exactly the percentage that the police were issuing.

      Different groups of people behave in different ways. If the population is 25% green and 75% purple, that doesn’t mean the number of people using the public pool is going to be 25% green and 75% purple. If 80% of the greens use the pool and 10% of the purples use the pools then we have .25*.80 green and .10*.75 purple or 20% green and 7.5% purple. In numbers, if we had a 1000 people, 250 would be green 750 would be purple. 200 greens would be using the pool and 75 purples would be using the pool.

      If 10% of the people using the pool were given warnings for running, that would mean that 25 greens and 7 purples were given warnings.

      According to race is everything people, that means the life guards are racists, 78% of the warnings were given to greens and only 22% to purples, this is racist! Only 25% of the warnings should have been given to the greens! They only represent 25% of the total population.

      The key here is that the greens represent a much larger percentage of the population of pool users.

      In the same way, the (PC Term) represented a much larger percentage of the population of speeders and they also represented a much larger percentage of the people that commit crimes.

      • “IIRC, they had to have an articulated reason to stop the person, in NYC that could be “You are loitering on a street corner and I suspect you of selling drugs.”
        The telling point of this, isn’t the number of (insert PC term for that minority) stopped and frisked, it was the number of them that were stopped, frisked and then *arrested*.”

        this is somehow closer to stop-and-frisk in the Guliani era. Bloomberg’s era is less “have a reason” and more “station police in specific neighborhoods and frisk everyone that fits a profile.”

        not sure why the latter is defended by the freedom-minded.

  2. Probably NJ. This was probably the late ’04 incident, and the NJSP quit writing tickets until the summertime. It came out then that most all the municipalities were going broke, since a good portion of their operating expenses were funded from their share of those ticket revenues.

    The public ignored the additional finding that the roads got safer during this ticket writing hiatus. Doesn’t match the narrative the public is fed.

  3. Promoting “stop and frisk” is hardly the way to uphold the American Principles of Liberty, nor is “[saving] lives by taking guns off the streets” (though lives may be saved by taking criminals off the streets – notice any difference there?) So, clearly, Musto is more than a little confused about how all this was supposed to work.

    If one understands the genesis and evolution of the Progressive (incremental communism or incremental fascism) Movement, then nothing they say or do today is any mystery. Rather, it is quite predictable.

    Unfortunately we have no political party or movement of any significance that opposes the Progressives by upholding original principles. If we did, Progressivism would have been stopped in its tracks, and eliminated, say, around the turn of the 20th Century, or by the 1920s after the horrors of Woodrow Wilson. Instead we have two Progressive parties; one that proceeds strenuously with outrageous Progressivism bordering on communist revolution, and another which slows it down, making Progressivism more palatable and thus making Progressivism work exactly the way it is intended.

    Thus our “friends” are quite likely our worst enemies, for it could well be argued that if Progressivism had been allowed to run it Democratic Party (much faster and more brutal) course uninhibited, we’d have been alarmed enough to snuff it out by the mid 20th Century. As it is I think we’re in for a lot worse. For one thing, the American people are no longer familiar with how liberty was supposed to work, so in general we don’t even know what we’d be fighting for.

Comments are closed.