No mention of Kim Dotcom or Julian Assange in the story. But that seems like higher-profile cases with the same kind of bullying tactics.
Don't think she's particularly evil, she's your everyday average prosecutor.
I don't get the impression that anyone is saying "Everyone does it, so she's fine".
By getting mad at her personally, you are in effect becoming Timothy McVeigh. He took out an entire building full of feds and nothing happened. I'm not even sure that carpet nuking Washington, D.C. would put a dent in federal overreach. It's a mass social movement, not a breakdown of part of the system.
At no point did I suggest that anybody be harmed.
So go read my comment.
...
Now, what you read was a conditional statement. The article claims that prosecutor Ortiz is a bad seed, a "lone gunman theory" of a rogue lawyer who conducts legal lynchings on her own accord.
What I replied is that IF that hypothesis were true, she would have been taken out long ago. A lone psychopath simply cannot go around destroying people's lives in broad daylight. If nothing else, the widow of one of her victims will do her in. Since she still breathes, the rogue prosecutor theory is conclusively disproven.
Read the next paragraph of my comment.
Now, Timothy McVeigh had a rogue government theory, just like the article we are discussing. He thought that if you could just prune back the feds a bit, do a little gardening, that they would get the message. He obviously failed. If anything, he made them stronger and more determined. So the theory that government overreach has anything to do with individual government employees is very conclusively disproven.
Logically, then, if you believe that naming and shaming prosecutor Ortiz will help, you are making the same mistake as Timothy McVeigh, and for the same reasons. The correlation of Ortiz's actions with Aaron's outcome does not imply causation.
You are glad I am being downvoted into oblivion. Of course you are. You are part of the system, and the system defends itself against strong statements about how things actually work. You and your downvoting friends are antibodies trying to maintain the status quo. You are part of the vast social movement that has given us asset forfeiture and national bunny rabbit police.
My God man, have you no sense of decency or decorum?
Honestly, is it too much to expect that people read carefully before censoring things?
The system definitely needs to change. But we, the people, are part of the system and can exert political pressure on other systems to change. Sometimes you need a person to be an icon of what is wrong, and work change through her. This is far more powerful than any act of violence. (And indeed, gross abuse of power is getting worse, but it is also not widespread. So while there are thousands of Americans who have won the "your life is now ruined whatever you do!" lottery held by the government, it's still only thousands. When more than 1% of the population wins this lottery (4M or so), then I think physical violence should be considered. But not before.
Of course, I could be misinterpreting what is being said, and the commenter is free to correct me, but it does look that way given he jumped from removing Ortiz from office to assasination.
The problem with prosecutors is that they'd better know where that line between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' is, and if they're looking for magic words in poorly-worded statutes for their Trump Card, they've failed in their duty.
Until the public is willing to call foul on these people, this practice will continue. Until the Congress (and state legislatures, who are somewhat less competent on the whole0 can get THEIR acts together, they need to look at everything they right from the perspective of a rogue prosecutor.
That's tough, but, crap, you take a government job, you get saddled with some hard work from time to time.