I will quote all of this below, the relevant message, in case it disappears. But I will say that in an AP world this kind of event could not occur. Why do I say that? In an AP world, this crooked detective wouldn't expect to be protected by an equally-crooked judge. In an AP world, this crooked detective would be 'donated to death', very quickly, and there would be nothing at all that anybody could do to stop this. And if a crooked judge tried to help him get away with this amazing perjury, that judge too would be 'donated to death', just as quickly. And anyone who supported him, or them. Mostly, the deterrent value of AP would make such actions unthinkable, and impossible in practice.
One reason that my AP idea should be considered so good is that it must be judged in comparison with the existing world, all the bad things like this. Anybody who criticizes AP needs to explain why it would somehow be worse than today's amazing world.
When I do a Google-search for things like ' "Assassination Politics" "bell" ' I occasionally read comments about how 'Bell has not recanted', or 'Bell still believes in his AP idea'. As if, they are somehow shocked to discover that I really still support my AP idea. Why should I recant? Why should I abandon my discovery/invention? Does our world still have injustice, in the way this current Reddit item describes? Does our world still have militaries, taxation to fund them, wars, and nuclear weapons? Does anybody (else) have a credible idea to solve these problems?
I will recant AP when, and only when, the world figures out a way to solve ALL of its problems that AP would otherwise solve. Which will NEVER occur.
Jim Bell
-----------------------------
From that cite shown above:
-----------------------------
"I represented the man who this ex-NYPD detective lied into a violent felony indictment. Michael Bergman completely fabricated a fake crime out of spite. If convicted, would’ve faced minimum 3.5 years in prison. Max 15. Today, the liar only got probation.
"I remember first meeting Mr. Barbosa. In interview cells attached to the cage behind the arraignment courtroom in Brooklyn criminal court. Like everyone I represent I don’t get to choose. I just happened to be working that day, & a file with his name & charges was handed to me.
"The charges were serious. Detective Bergman claimed that after stopping Mr. Barbosa’s car, he accelerated backwards at a high rate of speed, then turned the car toward the Detective. Was right in between headlines. And slammed on gas. Bergman dove out of the way to save his life.
"Mr. Barbosa was in a world of trouble. Charged w/ attempted assault in first degree. A Class C violent felony. A brazen act of violence. I wondered what he was thinking. What motivated this? I walked thru the door into the jail directly behind the “In God We Trust” sign in court.
I called his name & he walked in. Tired. Not feeling well. Shaking his head. I told him his charges. And he forcefully denied it. “Didn’t happen. These cops have been harassing me for months. I was parked. They pulled up. I drove off. That was it.” I pressed him more.
“Why on earth would they make something like this up?” I asked. Cops lie all the time. To justify bad stops & frisks, excessive use of force. Sometimes they plant evidence. Big lies. Small lies. Here: there was no motivation. He wasn’t injured. They didn’t find anything on him.
“I honesty don’t know. They don’t like me, but saying I did this?” He trailed off. Put head down. He was really upset. I was having a hard time still believing him. “So you just pulled out? Didn’t accidentally almost hit him?” He shook his head no. “I’ll look for video,” I said.
A reaction to the idea of video surveillance can sometimes be a tell. If not so enthusiastic, it’s likely the video won’t be helpful. But he jumped up:
“There’s video?!”
“I don’t know. I’ll definitely be looking for it.”
[snip]