DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus President Trump asks NFL players to recommend people for pardons

Most Republicans think she has CTE already...

Most R's display advanced symptoms themselves.




juuuuuust kidding....

She looks more like a Long Snapper to me

Thanks GM, thats a visual I didn't need.

Great, if she ends up in Cleveland our new uniform will be an orange pants suit.

She qualifies as a Perennial loser.
We can't have that on our team!

Can't blame Bill for always being on the hunt.

Hillary Clinton is the Mike Holmgren of politics

Can't blame Bill for always being on the hunt.

Ya think? I was going to go with Rob Ryan.. rode somebody else's reputation to fame, capitalized on it, got overpaid for a long time based on somebody else's reputation, stumbled into a few achievements along the way.. but in the end, was way overhyped and at time, just crazy.

You can say that again!

Oh, you already did.

By Doug Baldwin, Anquan Boldin, Malcolm Jenkins and Benjamin Watson
The writers are former and current professional football players.

President Trump recently made an offer to National Football League players like us who are committed to protesting injustice. Instead of protesting, he suggested, we should give him names of people we believe were “unfairly treated by the justice system.” If he agrees they were treated unfairly, he said, he will pardon them.

To be sure, the president’s clemency power can be a valuable tool for redressing injustice. Just look at Alice Johnson, age 63, who was serving a life sentence for a nonviolent drug conviction until her sentence was commuted by President Trump. He should be commended for using his clemency power in that case.

But a handful of pardons will not address the sort of systemic injustice that N.F.L. players have been protesting. These are problems that our government has created, many of which occur at the local level. If President Trump thinks he can end these injustices if we deliver him a few names, he hasn’t been listening to us.

As Americans, it is our constitutional right to question injustices when they occur, and we see them daily: police brutality, unnecessary incarceration, excessive criminal sentencing, residential segregation and educational inequality. The United States effectively uses prison to treat addiction, and you could argue it is also our largest mental-health provider. Law enforcement has a responsibility to serve its communities, yet this responsibility has too often not met basic standards of accountability.

These injustices are so widespread as to seem practically written into our nation’s DNA. We must challenge these norms, investigate the reasons for their pervasiveness and fight with all we have to change them. That is what we, as football players, are trying to do with our activism.

President Trump could help. He could use his powers, including the clemency power, to make a real dent in the federal prison population. People like Alice Johnson, for example, should not be given de facto life sentences for nonviolent drug crimes in the first place. The president could stop that from happening by issuing a blanket pardon for people in that situation who have already served long sentences.

Of the roughly 185,000 people locked up in federal prisons, about 79,000 are there for drug offenses of some kind — and 13.5 percent of them have sentences of 20 years or more. Imagine how many more Alice Johnsons the president could pardon if he treated the issue like the systemic problem it is, rather than asking professional football players for a few cases.

There is also a systemic problem in federal prison involving the elderly, who by next year will make up 28 percent of the federal prison population. Releasing these prisoners would pose little to no risk to society. And yet from 2013 to 2017, the Bureau of Prisons approved only 6 percent of roughly 5,400 “compassionate release” applications. About half of those applications were for people who had been convicted of nonviolent fraud or drug offenses. Of those denied release, 266 died in custody.

EDITORS’ PICKS

Just the Fear of a Trade War Is Straining the Global Economy

A Renewed View of Some of the World’s Oldest Trees

U.N. Report Left Out Damning Details on Syria Chemical Attack
President Trump could order the release of any drug offender over the age of 60 whose conviction is not recent. That would be the morally right thing to do.

Apart from using the pardon power, there are policies the president and the attorney general could implement to help. For instance, they could eliminate life without parole for nonviolent offenses. Currently, more than half of those sentenced to die in federal prison are there for nonviolent offenses, and 30 percent of people sentenced to life (or de facto life) are there for a nonviolent drug crimes. Compare that with the state level: Only 2 percent of those sentenced to life (or de facto life) are there for drug offenses.

These changes, if President Trump were to make them, would positively affect the lives of thousands of people and have a lasting beneficial effect on many more people in the future. The president can implement these changes with his pardon power and other executive decisions. His ability to change the lives of people for the better is immense. We hope he uses it, not just for the few, but for the many.

President Trump, please note: Our being professional athletes has nothing to do with our commitment to fighting injustice. We are citizens who embrace the values of empathy, integrity and justice, and we will fight for what we believe is right. We weren’t elected to do this. We do it because we love this country, our communities and the people in them. This is our America, our right.

We intend to continue to challenge and encourage all Americans to remember why we are here in this world. We are here to treat one another with the kindness and respect every human being deserves. And we hope our elected officials will use their power to do the same.

This was a very well thought, and precise letter.

I would ask, what exactly is a "non-violent" drug crime? a dealer who is selling drugs to my 17 year old cousin, who then overdosed and died? Is that non-violent? How many deaths have to happen for it to be considered violent?

Although I get their point, they are not taking into the account the victims of these drug offenses. the families ruined, the parents that have lost children, needed counseling, needed to be hospitalized themselves from wanting to end their own lives after losing a child.

Yes, lets set them all free.

http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/SYN//54546/NewsDetailTemplate.aspx

This is my cousin.

The kid was an idiot for sticking his arm full of poison. He put himself at risk, he made the choice to do drugs. However, there is plenty of grief and sorrow in my Aunts heart to go around for the POS dealer that gave him the needle.

There is plenty of space in jail for him as well. Its a shame, he only got 4 years.

So, no, I disagree with the letter.

I agree with you to an extent. There is certainly loss of life due to the flow of drugs. But let's look a little deeper into that scenario.

A guy has a surgery and is prescribed pain killers. Six moths later the doctor cuts him off of that prescription. By this time the guy is addicted to opiods. His craving for opiods leads him to turning to heroin. He's on the street buying heroin. Over a period of five years, let's say, he goes through several dealers until finally one day the guy overdoses.

Now who is it that you put the responsibility of his death on? The doctor who got him hooked in the first place? Everyone who sold him heroin that helped lead to his death? Or do you hang all of the guilt on the last guy who sold him heroin when he overdosed? Or do we blame the addict who died for not seeking help and taking responsibility for his own actions?

I'm certainly not saying I have the answer to that question. I'm simply pointing out that it's a very complicated question.

In this "what if", theres not enough information.

The Doctor - did he prescribe an enormous amount of painkillers, that were unnecessary? if so, he should be investigated and his scripts watched. Yes.

The first dealer - Absolutely. I would bet, he has an overdose on his hands, somewhere down the line.

All the ones in-between - see above answer.

The last dealer - he absolutely does.

My cousin/the addict - he absolutely takes blame as well.

But just because the addict is to blame, does not mean the dealer has no responsibility, and vice versa.

In my cousin's case, he was the SECOND to overdose and die (lucky aunt huh?) Her third child - highly addicted as well, overdosed multiple times, but is still living. He has been through multiple rehabs, multiple arrest, etc. He has stolen from everyone he knows, including his mother and father, girlfriends, etc. His GF just OD'd a month ago and passed.

I don't think its that complicated. The user, the dealer, the doctor (if found to be prescribing more than needed) would be all to blame. The only person though, that paid any price would be the addict.

EDIT to ADD:

I hope everyday that his brother is arrested and put in jail for years. that is honestly his only hope to live at this point in his life. Nothing else is going to change. I would have loved my cousin to be incarcerated than dead in an alley behind a Circle K, along, freezing in the rain - slowly dying, because a SJW thought it wasn't his fault and he shouldn't be in jail or his dealer.

I don't really disagree with you. I've lost a brother and a nephew to overdose. The nephew was the son of my brother who overdosed. So the loss and its impact is very real to me as well.

When it comes to the doctor in the scenario..... It's very hard in many cases to pin the doctor as the culprit here. Addiction is something very individual. One person may take two percosets for a month and become an addict. Another person may take 4 a day for 4 months and walk away from them.

And in your scenario, while each player in it plays a part, actually each individuals part doesn't equate to murder with the lone exception of the very last dealer.

Let me give you my reasoning behind that. When a parent doesn't properly raise their child and he grows up to be a convicted criminal, they don't sentence the parent even while on some level the parent is partly responsible for the outcome. I guess I see it as the portion isn't an equal part of the whole.

Some folks were incarcerated for simple possession beefs.
I'd call them non-violent... and they might qualify.

Dealers? Perhaps not.
Old people? I'd consider it.
There could be many other non-violent crimes that might qualify besides dealing.

Now... white collar criminals who fleeced old people out of their retirement savings, thereby ruining their lives? No weapons were used, but I think they should stay for their entire terms.

There are certain sectors of criminals that destroy people's lives that seem to get much lighter sentences than others.

yup.

Sorry to hear. I truly am. It sucks.

I see what your saying about the patient and they are individual, i guess i am just thinking along the lines of the doctors that right scripts for a back surgery that they completed 4 years ago, ya know? You cant be held accountable for someone becoming an addict, but when you are writing unnecessary scripts, they should be.

i disagree, on the players parts. And all the other dealers, like i said, i would bet have had a "customer" die. So any dealer, should be charged as such, JMO.

No the parent does not get sentenced. But they are not providing something that physically effects someone either. They are not providing something that people are killed over every day, every hour either.

I don't feel our opinions are that far off.

we have been agreeing way to much lately...its give me the ickies

Maybe we're not quite the extremists we're painted to be.

White collar crime is code for white people crime far to often. Those crimes tend to affect many more victims but carry the lightest sentencing.

Yep and not persecuting doctors or the pharma companies just ensures another war on drugs, but this time poor white kids will be the target.

Why would we persecute doctors and pharma companies? Why not prosecute them?

So sad to hear this, blessings to you and your family.

You just have missed how I'm becoming a cop now

nah, that cant be it.

Yep, and the pos is out now. I have checked his Fb a couple times. While he is going to Browns games with his dad and brother, comments from people "congratulating" him when he got out.....

my little cousins 17 year old body rots in a grave. I can only wonder how many other lives were lost to his dealings, that will never get prosecuted or where found out. . . . .

It is understandable for you to carry this hatred for the guy and for what he did but it is not healthy for you to dwell on it.

I hope you can find peace with it eventually.

NFL players’ response to Trump’s pardon offer is well-intentioned but flawed

Originally published June 28, 2018 at 7:18 pm

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah...ned-but-flawed/

President Trump made an offer to protesting NFL players, that if they pass along cases of people they felt were victims of the criminal-justice system, he would consider pardons. The Seahawks' Doug Baldwin and other players responded via a New York Times op-ed.

By Matt Calkins
Seattle Times columnist

Any time you tackle a subject such as this, it’s imperative to take a breath before writing. But after spending the past seven days inhaling, I think I’m comfortable with this 800-word exhalation.

A few weeks ago, President Trump made a rather astonishing offer to protesting NFL players. He told them that if they pass along cases of people they felt were victims of the criminal-justice system, he would review them and consider pardons.

To think this proposal was anything but a PR move is probably (definitely?) naive. But considering Trump did commute the sentence of drug offender Alice Johnson after meeting with Kim Kardashian this month, it wasn’t something to ignore.

So last Thursday, the Seahawks’ Doug Baldwin, the Eagles’ Malcolm Jenkins, the Saints’ Benjamin Watson, and the retired Anquan Boldin responded to the offer via a New York Times op-ed. And anyone presuming the piece would be an invective-laced middle finger to the President was instantly proven wrong.

This was a well-intentioned, highly respectful plea that laid out a specific set of solutions. Only problem is … the solutions aren’t good.

Thinking that “a handful of pardons” wouldn’t change what they felt was a larger ill, the players didn’t offer individual cases up for review. Instead, they asked for a “blanket pardon” for non-violent drug offenders who, like Johnson, had already served long sentences.

They added that releasing non-violent drug offenders over age 60 whose convictions weren’t “recent” was “the morally right thing to do,” and that life sentences (or de facto life sentences) for non-violent drug offenders should no longer be handed out.


Superficially, this may seem reasonable or compassionate. But upon inspection, it seems ignorant and dangerous.

Would they be OK freeing kingpins who moved thousands of pounds of heroin and destroyed communities? How about “non-violent drug offenders” with extremely violent pasts?

Despite their good intentions, the players’ plan seems as misguided as it is unrealistic. Surely they could have gone about this differently, no?

That was one of the questions I had for California-based prosecutor Eric Siddall, who spoke on behalf of the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys. Two years ago, Siddall penned a piece entitled “The Myth of the Nonviolent Drug Offender,” in which he noted that “international cartels, terrorist organizations and criminal gangs thrive off narcotic sales” — and that violence is necessary for dealers to obtain territory.

In talking to me, he added that drug offenders are often murderers whose gangs intimidated eyewitnesses out of testifying, and that trafficking charges are the only ones that will stick.

“These aren’t people who just happen to be carrying drugs while trying to make ends meet or pay for their child’s diapers,” Siddall said. “(The players) are making an assumption that because someone is involved with drugs, they’re non-violent. How do you think drugs are transported or sold?”

Interestingly enough, Siddall likes that the players are trying to effect change. He has seen his share of draconian sentences given to truly non-violent offenders during they heyday of the war on drugs.

He also thinks the players are showing integrity in not asking for specific pardons, arguing that granting clemency off a celebrity’s recommendation makes a mockery of the criminal-justice system. Still, Siddall says blanket requests won’t cut it — you have to review these cases individually.

L.A.-based defense attorney Josh Ritter agrees. A prosecutor before going private, Ritter has locked up plenty of menaces who deserve every year of their multiple-decade-plus sentences. But since making the switch, he says he has defended drug offenders who are truly good people — people he’d feel comfortable sharing a drink with but are rotting in a cell instead.

“A lot of these are good folks who made a mistake and got themselves into a mess,” Ritter said. “Now they’re really begging for their lives, but they themselves aren’t bad people.”

This is why Ritter would actually like to see the players give Trump names to review. He understands why they’d be reluctant to do so from a political perspective but thinks “calling him on his bluff” may get deserving people out of prison.

Is that something Trump could dangle over the NFL’s head for the rest of his presidency? Yes. But if you have an opportunity to free a non-violent person from an unjustly long sentence — if you have a chance to truly give someone his or her life back — might that dangling be worth it?

I have no idea what the right answer is. This is an unprecedented situation involving an unpredictable head of state. But I do think these questions are worth asking. Self-serving as Trump’s offer may be, he is giving players never-before-seen power if he’s sincere.

The Seahawks said Baldwin was not available for an interview, so I didn’t have the chance to get his thoughts on any of this. And though I doubt he would have changed his stance on passing along pardon suggestions, I wonder if he would have considered ways to get more legitimately unjust cases reviewed — be it by the President, Department of Justice or any other relevant entity.

What I’m sure of is that he and his co-authors care deeply about this issue. I’m equally sure that the piece they published has major flaws.

Athletes become great not just due to talent, but because of their desire to improve. These four are on to something here, but they need to do better.

I have a question or two for you.

1. Why do you consistently try to make minorities look bad? You highlight certain phrases and all your posts come from the same angle.

2. Do you think that style of posting is going to change the minds of people? Do you not think that being more tolerant, fair, and open-minded might be a better avenue to spread your message?

3. What's up w/this proposal? Pardons? What does that really change in today's climate? Will that really bring blacks and whites together? Will it bridge the divide between Dems and Republicans? Would it not be wiser to initiate programs that stress equality rather that concentrating on showy pardons?

You are starving in the wilderness when a man discovers he has chickens at his disposal, by law, by the Constitution.

He comes to you and offers you a chicken but you look down upon the offering and cry for bacon.

What 40 said!

No 40, I am in search of helping people come together rather than furthering the divide. Your corny anecdote is misleading and lame.

Please don't take this as confrontational, because it is not intended to be ..... but if there is someone who really does not belong in prison, based on the circumstances of their case, and they have an opportunity to either be pardoned or have their sentence commuted, wouldn't that be a great thing, whether it's showy or not?

Nothing says that other aspects of criminal justice can't also be investigated, but if there are people who have been incarcerated simply because of some relatively minor drug offense, might it not be compassionate to get them out ASAP?

This really demonstrates a big problem these days, which is, all too often, the idea that "if you can't give me everything I want, you suck for trying to make me settle for only part of it."

Blanket pardons are not going to happen, and as the article points out, maybe they should not. However, maybe a positive beginning can be made.

It's not confrontational and I agree w/you.

I just think that if I were in the President's situation, I would try to find a deeper, more helpful plan to help bridge the divide.

I don't think there is a person in the entire country who does not recognize the divide and how it is growing under his leadership. If it were me, I would want to bridge that divide. I would rather go deep than offer a surface handout.

I would do so because I think that a country united is much stronger than one divided. And my number one priority as president of this great country would be to make it as strong and united as possible.

You made a good point, YTown and I get where you are coming from. But, these are troubled times, my friend. Despite the pollution that emits from many of these threads, I really believe that many Americans are tired of the bickering, labeling, and name-calling.

I think a majority of Americans are pleading for us to all work together to bridge the divide rather than further it.

I am one of those Americans and damn proud of it.

This is giving them nothing they really want....

If your child went to school everyday and a bully on the playground punched him in the face every single day.. so you and your son complained about it a lot... then one day, after you complained enough, the kid punched him in the face, then the vice principal made the bully give him an ice pack to put on it... now he's going to punch him in the face again tomorrow.. but hey, he gave him a little something he wanted.

would you be grateful that you and your kid got "something"?

There is no "one time" thing that is going to make them happy because they are fighting a systemic problem....

Regardless of whether you actually agree with the stance the NFL players have taken, I still don't see how anybody could think the players should have taken this offer as anything other than a "here's a token, now go away" type of offer.