|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:This coming from the same person who has repeatedly defended prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders in this very thread? Diversionary programs are prison?
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
anonumos posted:That is a topic that is far bigger than "we side with the criminal". You're brushing aside many issues to reduce your debate opponents' arguments into absurdity. and the implication that I "rejoice" in "separating families" was what? Valid debate? Sorry if I don't feel compelled to engage in serious discussion after comments like that. Oh. Wait. No I'm not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:yes, that's exactly right.  Tell me more about how the actions of prosecutors are implicitly justified by the crimes of the accused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Lol at middle class white dnd posters not understanding that strong property rights are needed for society to function. Yes if someone steals your tv you can just have daddy buy you a new one no big deal. That store owner absolutely can't have people shoplifting without consequence. First his insurance will go up to the point of being unaffordable if he keeps filing claims. Second there are people who will rob him blind and not give a poo poo about a summons in the mail. Third even if the perp is caught, the property may never be recovered. Most stores have tight margins and can't obsorb that cost. Hi, I literally grew up with drug dealer neighbors, in neighborhoods where every business and home had bars on their windows. Property is not something worth any form brutality, and it's frankly terrifying that so many Americans don't see it that way. Stop conflating that with wanting the police to do nothing. Police regularly use as much force as they can to bully someone into submission, it frequently kills people, and it's not okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I seem to recall saying that for most simple possession cases, diversionary programs were more appropriate than incarceration. I also seem to recall stating repeatedly that I was not opposed to legalization of most narcotics. Why bother punishing them at all? Do you think drug prohibition is effective at reducing use?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:
Except I didn't say that. But nice try. Misconduct is misconduct, and it needs to be dealt with. Nothing the defendant did justifies prosecutorial misconduct. But trying to guilt me for "separating families before the holidays"? Let's see...my last decision came out yesterday. It involved a grandfather who raped his 6 and 8 year old granddaughters. I don't feel guilty at all that he's not with his family this Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Why bother punishing them at all? Do you think drug prohibition is effective at reducing use? not really, no. Which is why I have said...repeatedly...that I don't oppose legalization of most narcotics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I seem to recall saying that for most simple possession cases, diversionary programs were more appropriate than incarceration. I also seem to recall stating repeatedly that I was not opposed to legalization of most narcotics. Stop being so loving disingenuous. I clearly said "non-violent drug offenders", not "simple possession cases". Dance around it all you want, but you were explicitly arguing for imprisoning non-violent drug offenders earlier in the thread. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Ok but if you are a target, you just give up the goods and walk away right. It's the money they want. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Correct, and people who professionally transport valuables are taught exactly that. The gun is because their physical safety is more likely to be threatened as a result of carrying valuables, not to protect the valuables. Plainly: people who transport jewels carry guns because there is no reason to believe a jewel thief or burglar won't step up to killing witnesses. Pomp posted:Property is not something worth any form brutality, and it's frankly terrifying that so many Americans don't see it that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Stop being so loving disingenuous. I clearly said "non-violent drug offenders", not "simple possession cases". Pretty sure you're the one being disingenuous. Your statement suggested I supported prison time for "non-violent" offenders as a complete category. It's been stated, repeatedly, that this is not the case. (You're also the one who argued that drug dealers are non-violent and therefore do not warrant punishment, but Enron were violent because they tangentially resulted in people's death due to loss of electricity. I think that's pretty logically inconsistent and disingenuous...but that's just me. I, on the other hand, support punitive action against both the drug dealer AND the white collar crook. A much more consistent position.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So if someone kicked in your front door while you were home, grabbed your computer, and started walking off with it, you would just let them take it? If a police officer happened to be passing by, you would not want them to use any sort of force to stop that person? I would, yeah, because gently caress if I'm going to risk escalating the situation and putting myself in harms way for a loving thing. Hell, even if I had a gun I wouldn't risk killing the thief for stealing a computer. I guess I'm not callous enough to think that my computer is worth risking someone's life over, even if they're a criminal. As for a cop walking by, I'd be pretty happy if they were able to stop the theft and arrest the criminal using appropriate force but if I knew the cop couldn't do that and would probably kill the criminal, gently caress it, let him take it. It's a thing, not worth taking a life over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
unfortunately, it's not unheard of for someone who has decided to violate a person's property rights to also decide to...you know...kill them. Even when they don't resist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So if someone kicked in your front door while you were home, grabbed your computer, and started walking off with it, you would just let them take it? If a dude kicks in my door he can take anything he wants. I'm not escalating the situation because neither my life nor theirs are worth escalating to force. quote:If a police officer happened to be passing by, you would not want them to use any sort of force to stop that person?  Pomp posted:Stop conflating that with wanting the police to do nothing. Police regularly use as much force as they can to bully someone into submission, it frequently kills people, and it's not okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Yeah, you don't want to be shooting at people who break into your house...they could be cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:yes, that's exactly right. Of course a pedophile is your goto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Yeah, you don't want to be shooting at people who break into your house...they could be cops. There's also unironically this. Hell, in my neighborhoods growing up they'd might just keep the computer indefinitely as "evidence."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Pretty sure you're the one being disingenuous. Your statement suggested I supported prison time for "non-violent" offenders as a complete category. It's been stated, repeatedly, that this is not the case. No, every time someone mentions drug crimes you respond with qualifying statements about "first-time offenders" and "simple possession". If you do not support imprisoning people for non-violent drug offenses, full stop, why are you using these qualifying statements every time the topic comes up? And here is you explicitly calling for punishing non-violent drug offenders: ActusRhesus posted:I buy that argument for the possession case, because I have sympathy for people with substance abuse issues and agree they are people we should be looking to rehabilitate. Not so much the dealer. If you make the decision to profit from illegal activity, then yeah...there are going to be consequences for that. ----- ActusRhesus posted:(You're also the one who argued that drug dealers are non-violent and therefore do not warrant punishment, but Enron were violent because they tangentially resulted in people's death due to loss of electricity. I think that's pretty logically inconsistent and disingenuous...but that's just me. I, on the other hand, support punitive action against both the drug dealer AND the white collar crook. A much more consistent position.) Yeah, I'm going to ask you to quote that because I said nothing even remotely similar to that. My argument was that Enron was handled more or less appropriately - the organization was dissolved, top executives were sent to prison for a reasonable amount of time in relatively humane conditions, and most of the low- and mid-level employees involved in the fraud were not punished beyond losing their jobs. If this strategy was applied to drug criminals, we wouldn't be having this discussion - instead cops and prosecutors spend an enormous amount of time and resources on low- and mid-level dealers. You really wouldn't even need any drug crimes on the books, someone running a large illegal enterprise could easily be charged with fraud and tax evasion. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in prison for drug crimes. Granted you're in a very limited position of power, but if your position is so "consistent", how many of the white-collar criminals who precipitated the most recent global financial crisis via criminal fraud are currently sitting in prison for decades? You people can't even put away Angelo Mozilo, and we're supposed to have an even-handed discussion about how some low-level drug dealer deserves consequences? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Diversionary programs are prison? Whine more in QCS about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:
So you agree some non-violent offenders do warrant punishment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Of course a pedophile is your goto. well, those are the cases I deal in....so since your comment was directed at me personally, and the glee I feel in "breaking up families" it's not inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So you agree some non-violent offenders do warrant punishment. Yes, the executive leadership of large-scale illegal enterprises should face criminal charges. Do you agree that some non-violent offenders do not warrant punishment? Do you care to comment on why the practical threshold for punishing non-violent offenders (and especially minorities) for drug crimes is so much lower than for other non-violent crime?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Pomp posted:If a dude kicks in my door he can take anything he wants. I'm not escalating the situation because neither my life nor theirs are worth escalating to force. I don't understand your position. You wouldn't stop a burglary, but you're ok with the cops stopping it, as long as they never use force? What sort of loving burglar do you think gives stuff back when asked politely? So let's say the dude walks out with your computer... and comes back the next night for your microwave. Will you stop him then? What if he just decided to crash on your couch one night and eat the food out of your fridge? At what point are you OK with the police using force to remove this intruder, since you won't get your hands dirty over "property"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
"Do you agree that some non-violent offenders do not warrant punishment?" Depends on the offense and depends on how you define "punishment."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't understand your position. You wouldn't stop a burglary, but you're ok with the cops stopping it, as long as they never use force? What sort of loving burglar do you think gives stuff back when asked politely? You can't separate "force" from "excessive force" can you? "Cops shouldn't endanger someones life over property." "Well what if a rando crashed on your couch or ate your food?  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Plainly: people who transport jewels carry guns because there is no reason to believe a jewel thief or burglar won't step up to killing witnesses. Yes there is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"Do you agree that some non-violent offenders do not warrant punishment?" I guess you're going to be a pedant- "Do you agree that some low-level non-violent offenders do not warrant imprisonment and felony convictions, and that the focus should be on dismantling the organization they are a part of and punishing its leadership?" And again- Do you care to comment on why the practical threshold for punishing non-violent offenders (and especially minorities) for drug crimes is so much lower than for other non-violent crime?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Whine more in QCS about it. If you tell me what it is, sure
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Pomp posted:You can't separate "force" from "excessive force" can you? Your exact words were Pomp posted:Property is not something worth any form brutality
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I guess you're going to be a pedant- 1. Yes. Which is why they a. aren't all felonies and b. often result in diversionary programs. Pretty sure I already said all this. 2. Logical fallacy of begging the question. If you're going to accuse me of being a pedant, maybe you could be a little more clear in your communication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't understand your position. You wouldn't stop a burglary, but you're ok with the cops stopping it, as long as they never use force? What sort of loving burglar do you think gives stuff back when asked politely? Well, I think right-minded people don't expect the cops to either of the following: 1) shoot on sight; 2) grapple the burglar and sit on his chest until he stops breathing It's one thing if they have to use a take-down to bring someone into custody, but a whole other matter if they wind up pumping 10 rounds into an unarmed "suspect" because his blackness is scary. quote:So let's say the dude walks out with your computer... and comes back the next night for your microwave. Will you stop him then? What if he just decided to crash on your couch one night and eat the food out of your fridge? At what point are you OK with the police using force to remove this intruder, since you won't get your hands dirty over "property"? This is absurd. The way cops have been going about it lately is that they escalate a situation to the point where they have to use deadly force. And this isn't even lately, we're just seeing better documentation of it. In the incidences that have spawned recent protests, the OFFICERS escalate, not the suspect. Take the homeless dude in New Mexico as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EduzwLhndIM Yeh his verbiage was confrontational but he was agreeing to comply. The situation was de-escalating. Then, for no real reason, one officer says "Do it" and another fires a flash bang at him. The officers turned a standoff that was winding down nicely into a full out execution. Yeh, "he had a knife this" and "he had a knife that", but the situation was well in hand until they attacked. It's also a testament to the mistrust that people have of cops (especially those living like this man was) that the confrontation was as tricky as it was. His mistrust was quickly confirmed when they resorted to a flash bang (and the subsequent execution). Policing should be done differently. In Eric Garner's case, they didn't need to take him down that way. The officers in that case simply decided to try to overpower him, without regard to his safety or the "rightness" of their actions. They just took him out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You said you wouldn't stop a guy from walking off with your property. How far does your moral superiority extend? When he's pulling the copper out of the walls? Where do you, personally, draw the line on this moral stance you've taken? Just because it's the only thing american police are trained to do doesn't mean it's required. Also, not killing or brutalizing people over objects = moral superiority 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
It might just be me, but it seems like it's a really bad idea to rely on a burglar's good will to avoid him hurting you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Just because it's the only thing american police are trained to do doesn't mean it's required. Well brutality implies that its excessive and cruel so its loving useless, of course if its excessive then its wrong, its like saying "killing is wrong when its murder" Or should I just assume you're being a poo poo and using the word brutality when you mean violence so you can use loaded language.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:1. Yes. Which is why they a. aren't all felonies and b. often result in diversionary programs. Pretty sure I already said all this. 1. There are literally over 300,000 people in prison for drug crimes. Whatever diversionary programs exist, it is clear that large numbers of people, far beyond the executive leadership of these organizations, are not being offered that opportunity. 2. Are you sure you know what begging the question even means? There are literally over 300,000 people in prison for drug crimes. It is not begging the question to ask why low-level drug offenders are disproportionately punished compared to other non-violent criminals when all available data make it clear as day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:well, those are the cases I deal in....so since your comment was directed at me personally, and the glee I feel in "breaking up families" it's not inappropriate. So it's the kids fault for not saying "no", just like it's the homeowner's fault for having such nice things. Don't you get it? Every criminal is a special little flower and that requires you to let them keep breaking the law and having all of lifes comforts while denying their victims the same rights. Think that's what they've settled on. I mean how can you refute that Gen Ed Sociology 101 logic. Time to move on to drug talk again oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:Yes there is. Just give them what they want, everything will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Armed robbers arm themselves because they are willing to use force to further their robbery!? Quelle surprise!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:1. There are literally over 300,000 people in prison for drug crimes. Whatever diversionary programs exist, it is clear that large numbers of people, far beyond the executive leadership of these organizations, are not being offered that opportunity. It's begging the question because the way you phrased your question presumes some sort of malicious scheme and conscious racism as opposed to other possibilities...like financial crimes being a lot harder to prove.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Every facet of our judicial system is racist and full of inequality, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges to the prison guards to the executioners. In addition - our judicial system does a bad job of protecting us. Our current methods of dealing with criminals are terrible, and directly lead to high rates of recidivism. A desire to improve that does not equate to a lack of willingness to defend yourself, nor does it come out of some fox news strawman about sissy liberals who went to college.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Wow, it's almost like I said property is not worth endangering my own life over too. Pomp posted:Stop conflating that with wanting the police to do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:12
|
|