Baltimore Will No Longer Prosecute ‘Low Level Crimes’ Like Prostitution, Trespassing,

Sloopjonb said:

Baltimore hookers yuk thinking the same thing.

Click to expand...

Maybe the strippers from Dundalk and Essex will get a little more action? Some of them are pretty hot. Now that it's basically legal they don't have to worry about losing their other night job. I still wouldn't touch them but hey.

"Maybe the strippers from Dundalk and Essex will get a little more action? Some of them are pretty hot. Now that it's basically legal they don't have to worry about losing their other night job. I still wouldn't touch them but hey."


They already do well off the sugar-daddy economic system. All their bills and expenses are covered by a collection of simps, many who just enjoy getting used and actually don't even get laid. It is nonsensical, but that is the way it works, lol.

I do not want to offend anyone, but if you look up how George Wallace lost his first attempt at Governor for Alabama he said the other democrat ( the primary was the election then as no republican had a chance) won by out ******** him. Wallace said "Tell you this will ever out out-******me again.'' Not back then it meant who was the bigger racist. Today to do the same thing is soft on crime and free hand outs. A great example is the soft on crime DA in Philadelphia PA.. Now white liberals who often fund the campaigned SOMETIMES will change their tune when the crime comes to them but sadly as someone who has done exit polling in a 70% black area of Alabama can tell you many will say of why they voted for which candidate "Cause da Democrats is fur us and da Republicans is against us" In other words they do not have a damn clue why they are voting. Expect much more of this.

nezumi said:

Honestly, I'm happy for this.

I'm an adult. The government telling me who I have sex with or put in my body is stupid. Not their business.
They've replaced warrants/prison time with putting that money towards recovery programs for people picked up because of trafficking/mental illness/etc. So no more victims are getting lost than already are.
The past year-plus of doing this program resulted in less crime, so it would be stupid to not kick those tires more.
BPD is generally pretty awful in their response time. Maybe if they spend less time ushering prostitutes through that rotating door, they'll focus on real crime.

I don't know about that trespassing part. I haven't read the details of the plan. I assume if someone squats in my bedroom, the cops will still respond to that (if not to trespassing, they'll hustle over for gunfire!)

We'll see in a year or two, I guess.

Click to expand...

I sort of agree, but its not about protecting the people...its about control of the people. They don't care about the citizens its about collecting your taxes while people remain on the Sh!thole plantations while those in power get paid as they go home to their gated communities. Look at the fools running that joint, look at the fools running this country. They have never created or produced a damn thing of value in their lives. All their miserable lives they have lived and gotten rich off the tax payer. 90% of the time when someone elected/selected they simply are joining a club. Trespassing? Who wants to bet that also includes breaking and entering and burglary.

bluedog46 said:

I do not want to offend anyone, but if you look up how George Wallace lost his first attempt at Governor for Alabama he said the other democrat ( the primary was the election then as no republican had a chance) won by out ******** him. Wallace said "Tell you this will ever out out-******me again.'' Not back then it meant who was the bigger racist. Today to do the same thing is soft on crime and free hand outs. A great example is the soft on crime DA in Philadelphia PA.. Now white liberals who often fund the campaigned SOMETIMES will change their tune when the crime comes to them but sadly as someone who has done exit polling in a 70% black area of Alabama can tell you many will say of why they voted for which candidate "Cause da Democrats is fur us and da Republicans is against us" In other words they do not have a damn clue why they are voting. Expect much more of this.

Click to expand...

Comes down to a lot of fake news...the democrats have controlled the media for 50 or 60 years at least. They control it so much they rewrote history. As it is few people know that the DemocRAT party was started by slave holders...for slave holders, they are the ones who actually started Jim Crow laws. DemocRat members are who started the KKK. Some of the biggest racists out their were DemocRATS including John F. Kennedy. Look at Frank Sinatra's documentary. Its on YT. Frank actually helped Kennedy steal the election. Frank and Sammy Davis Jr were best friends. After Kennedy was elected Frank saw how Kennedy was dissing Sammy because he was black. Frank basically told Kennedy to Eff off and cut ties with him and regretted getting him elected. Then the real deal was Pres. Johnson who has been quoted in saying..."Give those N$%^&rs welfare and we will have them voting democRAT for the next 200 years". So basically it was a trade of welfare for votes but the catch is this....to get welfare it had to be a house hold with no male head of house hold. So they also helped destroy the black family at the same time. Now lots of black democrat politicians in the Club. They all get rich too. Sellouts getting rich while the constituents continue to live in sh!tty hoods decade after decade with little progress.

nezumi said:

Honestly, I'm happy for this.

I'm an adult. The government telling me who I have sex with or put in my body is stupid. Not their business.
They've replaced warrants/prison time with putting that money towards recovery programs for people picked up because of trafficking/mental illness/etc. So no more victims are getting lost than already are.
The past year-plus of doing this program resulted in less crime, so it would be stupid to not kick those tires more.
BPD is generally pretty awful in their response time. Maybe if they spend less time ushering prostitutes through that rotating door, they'll focus on real crime.

I don't know about that trespassing part. I haven't read the details of the plan. I assume if someone squats in my bedroom, the cops will still respond to that (if not to trespassing, they'll hustle over for gunfire!)

We'll see in a year or two, I guess.

Click to expand...

When you change the definition of crime to include less things, crime goes down. That doesn't indicate that unsavory behaviors have or have not continued, it means that those individuals have not been prosecuted. It is an obvious conclusion that when you cease to consider a huge number of things crimes, the number of overall crimes goes down. You haven't changed anything, you've changed what "crime" is. Also, stats from 2020 compared to 2019 are not valid in analyzing a policy outcome. 2020 had too many odd events for obvious reasons and other things had more influence than any policy change could have, except the government policy enforcing business shutdowns/personal lockdowns. The populace waging a war against the police and the media/government/corporate powers endorsing that war also change the dynamic quite a bit. Anybody with a half decent understanding of statistics would not use 2020 data vs. 2019 data to make any policy conclusions aside from attempting to estimate unprecedented government restrictions because it's the best/only data we have on that. Hopefully we don't have more.

I want to believe that ceasing to pursue these things would lead to less people needlessly in jail. In some cases, I believe that to be true. However, are families going to want to live in a city where there are prostitutes and drug users occupying corners uncontested? Are businesses going to want to operate in an environment where druggies and prostitutes are loitering outside their stores and nothing can be done about it? Are businesses going to want to risk opening up in an environment that looks the other way for these "minor" crimes?

I'm actually open to hearing about how these things could me made into legit, legal businesses. At least for marijuana and prostitution. Drugs beyond that, I'd be open to consideration but I don't think I'd be budged. I don't want Baltimore to become San Francisco. I think marijuana should be legally sold by registered businesses. Prostitution, I'm not 100% there but I do think I could get there. Either way, this law is not that, it merely looks the other way while street level dealers operate. Same for prostitution. As a registered business, I see an argument for it. However, looking the other way and letting the streets run the business is not a positive. There are far too many downsides that come along with that type of activity.

Baltimore clearly needs a cultural change and I'm not sure that this is it. I hope they prove me wrong but I'm not seeing it. Maybe it will change the narrative of police vs. citizens. If things get really bad, can the militarized police still be blamed if the only thing they are allowed to really pursue is violent crime? I want to be positive, but I'm not. This will enable gangs to operate with impunity and gain more money/power. I really want Baltimore to come up and almost bought a house there last year. At this time, I'm very glad I did not...

I've been saying for years that people are sick of each other's shit. It is well past time for the good people of this nation to stop supporting the bad people of this nation. It is time to completely withdraw from Baltimore and allow it to become the socialist utopia so many democrats want. I just hope all that blood flowing into the bay doesn't permanently infect it with gonorrhea.

Jub said:

When you change the definition of crime to include less things, crime goes down. That doesn't indicate that unsavory behaviors have or have not continued, it means that those individuals have not been prosecuted. It is an obvious conclusion that when you cease to consider a huge number of things crimes, the number of overall crimes goes down. You haven't changed anything, you've changed what "crime" is. Also, stats from 2020 compared to 2019 are not valid in analyzing a policy outcome. 2020 had too many odd events for obvious reasons and other things had more influence than any policy change could have, except the government policy enforcing business shutdowns/personal lockdowns. The populace waging a war against the police and the media/government/corporate powers endorsing that war also change the dynamic quite a bit. Anybody with a half decent understanding of statistics would not use 2020 data vs. 2019 data to make any policy conclusions aside from attempting to estimate unprecedented government restrictions because it's the best/only data we have on that. Hopefully we don't have more.

I want to believe that ceasing to pursue these things would lead to less people needlessly in jail. In some cases, I believe that to be true. However, are families going to want to live in a city where there are prostitutes and drug users occupying corners uncontested? Are businesses going to want to operate in an environment where druggies and prostitutes are loitering outside their stores and nothing can be done about it? Are businesses going to want to risk opening up in an environment that looks the other way for these "minor" crimes?

I'm actually open to hearing about how these things could me made into legit, legal businesses. At least for marijuana and prostitution. Drugs beyond that, I'd be open to consideration but I don't think I'd be budged. I don't want Baltimore to become San Francisco. I think marijuana should be legally sold by registered businesses. Prostitution, I'm not 100% there but I do think I could get there. Either way, this law is not that, it merely looks the other way while street level dealers operate. Same for prostitution. As a registered business, I see an argument for it. However, looking the other way and letting the streets run the business is not a positive. There are far too many downsides that come along with that type of activity.

Baltimore clearly needs a cultural change and I'm not sure that this is it. I hope they prove me wrong but I'm not seeing it. Maybe it will change the narrative of police vs. citizens. If things get really bad, can the militarized police still be blamed if the only thing they are allowed to really pursue is violent crime? I want to be positive, but I'm not. This will enable gangs to operate with impunity and gain more money/power. I really want Baltimore to come up and almost bought a house there last year. At this time, I'm very glad I did not...

Click to expand...

They don't have a culture that's the problem. Every check day are their holidays. Social events are wakes and funerals. Maybe a BBQ where someone will likely get shot and then a wake and a funeral. They are uneducated and essentially worthless unless you need drugs or an illegal gun. The dems did this and they won't actually fix it, with policing and cracking some skulls. You can't baby a murderer. Kick their ass so they think twice and move on.

Crosseye Dominant said:

"Maybe the strippers from Dundalk and Essex will get a little more action? Some of them are pretty hot. Now that it's basically legal they don't have to worry about losing their other night job. I still wouldn't touch them but hey."


They already do well off the sugar-daddy economic system. All their bills and expenses are covered by a collection of simps, many who just enjoy getting used and actually don't even get laid. It is nonsensical, but that is the way it works, lol.

Click to expand...

It is really bizzare.

I met a woman one time that had been a stripper (was in a good white collar job then) and she was open about her experiences.

But yes, she had a number of men that gave/bought her clothes, shoes, gave her large amounts of cash, and did not get sex in return.

They would just hang out with her between her times on stage.

mdlowrider said:

Baltimore is a sewer anyway, so that's really no change. Prostitution is much more concerning. I personally think women should be able to make their own decisions about providing sex services, but the problem is that in many (most) cases, it is not the woman deciding. Prostitution is one of the main cash sources driving human trafficking. These women (and children) are slaves, not sole proprietors. Mosby's decision on this is stupid, shortsighted, and just evil. And her main justification is that, "we tried it, complaint calls didn't go up, so it must be OK", never considering that people don't call when they rightly think nothing will be done about it anyway. By this standard, we don't need a State's Attorney or police at all. Get rid of both and there will be zero calls to their no-longer existent offices.

Click to expand...

I have not seen where they will not prosecute human trafficking.

But prosecuting prostitutes, hammers those who are being trafficked, not the traffickers.

Leave the girls (and guys) alone, but go after those who exploit them.

A number of countries have such laws. Prostitution is legal, but pimping and trafficking is severely punished.

How are these her decisions to make?

The correctness or otherwise of her views aside? Somewhere along the line, it has become accepted practice for both politicians and bureaucrats alike to simply and publicly avow to disregard laws they don't like.

Pinecone said:

I have not seen where they will not prosecute human trafficking.

But prosecuting prostitutes, hammers those who are being trafficked, not the traffickers.

Leave the girls (and guys) alone, but go after those who exploit them.

A number of countries have such laws. Prostitution is legal, but pimping and trafficking is severely punished.

Click to expand...

*****I've been to several of those countries where prostitution is legal. The pimp is the government, except the government takes their money and doesn't provide much if any protection or benefits.

So, instead of just having a pimp who exploits them, they now have a legal pimp who exploits them, AND they pay another pimp under the table to protect them from shady guys, and for collections on guys that try and stiff them.. (See what I did there!!???), etc..

It's really the whole "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.." kind of thing. Dunno which is better. The women doing the actual work are often not even from the host country they work in. Crazy I tell ya!

Pinecone said:

It is really bizzare.

I met a woman one time that had been a stripper (was in a good white collar job then) and she was open about her experiences.

But yes, she had a number of men that gave/bought her clothes, shoes, gave her large amounts of cash, and did not get sex in return.

They would just hang out with her between her times on stage.

Click to expand...

There are gamer chicks on Twitch in the same boat. I was watching one, and yes she's an attractive 31-yearold who looks mid 20s, but she doesn't even dress provocatively like most and she pulls in the donations. One guy dropped $500 on her one time I was watching (usual donations are $5 to $20).

I don't understand it.

nezumi said:

Honestly, I'm happy for this.

I'm an adult. The government telling me who I have sex with or put in my body is stupid. Not their business.

Click to expand...

Your mindset is fairly Libertarian. I mostly agree with you except for one big thing which isn't being addressed: Personal responsibility.

People want the kind of freedom you're describing but they want government protection from the consequences of their actions, which penalizes everyone else who made smarter decisions.

If there were a way to tell people "We're legalizing drugs and sex but if you become addicted or diseased, the government (and hence health insurance companies) are not bailing you out at taxpayer expense" I'd be all for it.

Ponder_MD said:

Your mindset is fairly Libertarian. I mostly agree with you except for one big thing which isn't being addressed: Personal responsibility.

People want the kind of freedom you're describing but they want government protection from the consequences of their actions, which penalizes everyone else who made smarter decisions.

If there were a way to tell people "We're legalizing drugs and sex but if you become addicted or diseased, the government (and hence health insurance companies) are not bailing you out at taxpayer expense" I'd be all for it.

Click to expand...

Agreed, you can't create a system where people do not suffer the consequences of their actions. The libertarian thought process necessitates this type of feedback loop. I agree that we need to allow a process to redemption and not prohibit job opportunities due to a past history of drugs. A drug felony is markedly different than a felony assault charge. However, not allowing people to hit "rock bottom" is a mistake, IMO.

I don't think that replacing the so called "school to jail" pipeline with a "school to homeless/rehab" pipeline is a good trade-off. It gives the impression that we're treating people more humanely, with kid gloves, but do we really think it arrives at more positive outcomes? I don't think it does. Allowing people to subsist on government funds, while being homeless and helplessly addicted in the rehab cycle, where receiving food stamps is dependent on a negative drug test or rehab note, is not "humane" and brings everyone down IMO. It is, what most people refer to, as enabling. It is so hard to be compassionate and not enable those addicted but it is a must. This is why parents have such a hard time letting their kids hit rock bottom. You so badly want to be compassionate but what you're really doing is allowing someone to subsist and maintain their addiction. If you provide them everything they need to live, they are incentivized to spend their time getting high. As tough as it may be, they may need to be more worried for food and shelter than getting high to get past the latter and realize that the lifestyle has caught up.

I've had friends that were tremendously addicted and lost one of my childhood friends to it. It's a horrifying process to watch and so hard to be compassionate, yet not enabling. That is the gist of why my stance is to legalize marijuana but not other drugs. I don't think drugs are evil nor are the people that do them. Some drugs are tremendously addictive and the lifestyle that comes with that addiction is not a way to live a wholesome life or contribute to a community/family. One can make it work in the short term but in the long term it always bites back. I do not agree with a tax payer funded subsistence lifestyle for addicts in the name of compassion. It is not compassionate in any way. It is actually cruel to keep them in that circle of subsistence.

Ok , I'll bite .

Yes Human Trafficking in the world is a thing , and the number is larger than zero . But the current narrative is virtually every prostitute and virtually every illegal alien is a " human trafficking victim " .

My take is that virtually all illegal aliens are here deliberately and voluntarily , through their own efforts , for the opportunities , get hold of free s@@@ , or combination . Most prostitutes do their thing because because it a more remuneritve and flexible way to get their drug money than flipping burgers for minimum wage .

So , to prove me wrong , what are the statistics for indictments/ prosecutions/ convictions for Human Trafficking ?

MaxVO2 said:

*****I've been to several of those countries where prostitution is legal. The pimp is the government, except the government takes their money and doesn't provide much if any protection or benefits.

So, instead of just having a pimp who exploits them, they now have a legal pimp who exploits them, AND they pay another pimp under the table to protect them from shady guys, and for collections on guys that try and stiff them.. (See what I did there!!???), etc..

It's really the whole "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.." kind of thing. Dunno which is better. The women doing the actual work are often not even from the host country they work in. Crazy I tell ya!

Click to expand...

What places are these?

And many places, they pay taxes like everyone else. And that is it.

Biggfoot44 said:

Ok , I'll bite .

Yes Human Trafficking in the world is a thing , and the number is larger than zero . But the current narrative is virtually every prostitute and virtually every illegal alien is a " human trafficking victim " .

My take is that virtually all illegal aliens are here deliberately and voluntarily , through their own efforts , for the opportunities , get hold of free s@@@ , or combination . Most prostitutes do their thing because because it a more remuneritve and flexible way to get their drug money than flipping burgers for minimum wage .

So , to prove me wrong , what are the statistics for indictments/ prosecutions/ convictions for Human Trafficking ?

Click to expand...

I don't know that there is that much in the US.

But it is a big problem in some countries.

I was in Scotland a number of years ago, and one the news stations was doing a piece on human trafficking, and there a good bit.

A lot of SE Asia, but in many cases, the family sold the woman to the trafficker. I remember one they interviewed and who they would she that she got back to her family. And she looked at them and said that her father would just sell her again.

But I agree with you, many of those in the business are in it for the bucks. And freely.

If we were truly all "equal under the law" once any state's attorney proclaimed they were not prosecuting certain crimes shouldn't that mean no state's attorney in the entire state shouldn't be able to as well?

Why are we not hearing from Lounge Chair Larry about this? Why isn't he insisting that Mosby do her job?

Baldheaded said:

I just don't go into Baltimore anymore. Not even for sporting events. I'm ok with just watching them on TV. Lets just hope the sewage doesn't spew out.

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for them to finish the wall, so we can open the hydrants