|
Obdicut posted:Sorry, it was my point that you prefer to go after low-hanging fruit than substantive posts, not yours. It'd be a weird point to make about yourself. Except his posts aren't that much more batshit than a lot of what's posted.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sure, but that's a wee bit different than being in Rikers for 3 years awaiting trial for a charge that was eventually dismissed: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law Well sure a 16 year old was kept in Rikers for 3 years (2 in solitary confinement) because prosecutors used the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, but, I think you'll find that any attempts to fix the system would violate the prosecutors' rights to gently caress with suspects because they assume they're all guilty scum. Completely unconstitutional, these fixes. It's like you expect the system to presume people to be innocent or something. 2 years average wait in Rikers for a trial is pretty standard for criminal trials, so I don't see what all these plebes are bitching about. They should educate themselves on the law so that they understand how lucky they are to have a system that respects justice and human rights so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Where was your grass-root suggestion? Oh good, you finally decided to stop being lovely to me and just ask. I think that an hour spent tutoring a young person is worth 100 hours lobbying your local legislature for a different proprietorial process for charging police officers when there is an officer-involved shooting. I think offering public courses on constitutional rights, and municipal/transportation code provisions does more than trying to play judge, jury and executioner from your computer desk on the use of deadly force in some other state, with only a handful of news reports and twitter comments as your evidence. I think increasing public transportation helps people get to work, get to school, avoid getting slammed with traffic tickets and pulled over by traffic cops because they can't afford to fix the car so it would pass inspection. I think increasing teachers' unions power and offering long-term contracts to teachers will improve primary education, and results. I think offering publicly funded trade-school programs that don't require a high school diploma to attend will offer another way out of poverty for people who either dropped out, or didn't want to or couldn't go to college. More later./
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except his posts aren't that much more batshit than a lot of what's posted. That doesn't make any sense as a defense to what I said, and in fact pretty much functions as an admission that you do go after the low-hanging fruit. To remind you of some stuff you could talk about : Punishing someone for using their right to trial and to confront their accuser by giving them a longer sentence than if they accept a plea is unethical, but incredibly common and seen as not a problem by most prosecutors. Many prosecutors use denial of bail and pretrial conditions to create better conditions for them to get a plea. This is obviously wildly unethical, but it is a basically open practice. It is often coupled with an arrest on a friday evening so that bail will not be set until Monday, in the areas where bond court isn't open on Saturdays. And it doesn't matter what your impression is of state prosecutors' and their attitude to win-loss records, state and federal both have very similar win-loss records for cases brought to trial. We can add to that the overwhelming whiteness of white prosecutors, and the disparity in sentencing requests from prosecutors for white vs. black defendants, and the racial disparity in death-penalty seeking: prosecutors are most likely to seek the death penalty for white victims. blarzgh posted:Oh good, you finally decided to stop being lovely to me and just ask. You were implying you already made these suggestions. And again, disagreeing with you is not being lovely towards you. quote:
I don't think that a different proprietorial process for charging police officers is a good thing, but I also think you're vastly overrating the effect of one hour tutoring a young person here. This is also a false dichotomy. quote:
Is all of this going to be a set of false dichotomies? These aren't the only two choices involved. The reason why these courses on rights and provisions aren't going to be effective is because they won't penetrate--not many in the community will actually take them, unless you are somehow wildly successful at intervention design beyond anything we've ever seen--and because it isn't lack of knowledge of constitutional rights that is driving the problem of institutional racism. If this is your claim, present some evidence that poor black defendants, who receieve longer sentences, are arrested at a greater frequency for the same crimes, controlling for crime rate, etc. have more ignorance of their constitutional rights and municipal transport codes. quote:I think increasing public transportation helps people get to work, get to school, avoid getting slammed with traffic tickets and pulled over by traffic cops because they can't afford to fix the car so it would pass inspection. Increasing public transportation would be a good thing in general, sure. However, even in areas with strong public transport, like NYC, there is a huge disparity in arrests based on race--you may have heard of this 'stop and frisk' thing. quote:I think increasing teachers' unions power and offering long-term contracts to teachers will improve primary education, and results. I think offering publicly funded trade-school programs that don't require a high school diploma to attend will offer another way out of poverty for people who either dropped out, or didn't want to or couldn't go to college. Again, similarly-educated black people have higher arrest rates than white people. You are acting as though this is simply a class issue. It is not. It is a race issue. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That doesn't make any sense as a defense to what I said, and in fact pretty much functions as an admission that you do go after the low-hanging fruit. Will address a lot of this when I'm not phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The prison system should in fact be eradicated and replaced by therapeutic retreats. Primitive European notions of retribution have no place in an enlightened society. If the families of victims disagree, they can also attend therapeutic retreats (different ones of course, tailored to condition them out of their retributive mindset). Therapeutic retreats for everyone! It's time to be shut of this hateful, barbarous system, which is no more just or ethical than trial by combat. This, but unironically. The concepts of sin and punishment are best caged in churches, mosques, and synagogues rather than in civil society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Will address a lot of this when I'm not phone posting. There's always a roast in the oven!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Will address a lot of this when I'm not phone posting. Maybe you should just refrain from phone-posting, since apparently it limits you to snarky comments that make you look like an rear end in a top hat and prevents you from substantial engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Maybe you should just refrain from phone-posting, since apparently it limits you to snarky comments that make you look like an rear end in a top hat and prevents you from substantial engagement. You know comments like that don't actually encourage discussion, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You know comments like that don't actually encourage discussion, right? Let's talk about it when you're not phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You know comments like that don't actually encourage discussion, right? I'm sorry, I don't understand you. What I'm saying is that, during the periods of time when you can only phone post and therefore can't substantially engage with what is said, instead preferring to make one-liners and post abbreviated arguments, complain about victimization by mods, or snark at people, you'd be better served by refraining from doing so, because it makes you look bad. If instead you waited until you could engage substantially, you'd come off a lot better and your arguments, and your positions, would be better served. What about this doesn't encourage discussion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Thanks for proving my point. blarzgh posted:I think that an hour spent tutoring a young person is worth 100 hours lobbying your local legislature for a different proprietorial process for charging police officers when there is an officer-involved shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I'm not entirely sure that was serious, but, uh, I'm okay with "therapeutic retreats" as long as the person can't actually leave for a set period of time and if they have a significantly lower rate of recidivism (and don't lead to extrajudicial knock-on effects). It's all just ignorance man, racism is dead, just act like it doesn't exist and that solves the problem!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Will address a lot of this when I'm not phone posting. It's super weird how you can phone post to your heart's content to poo poo all over someone who posted weeks ago and compare them to people making completely different non insane points, but when challenged on things you can't weasel out of you're Wimpy offering your posts later for a hamburger today Edit gently caress super beaten
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Another proposal that doesn't require changing the constitution: lying in uniform should be a fireable offense and so should repeated use of expletives in public. Simple steps like those and many others, could go a long way towards showing that departments really are willing to do that hard work to start to earn the trust and respect of their communities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:It's super weird how you can phone post to your heart's content to poo poo all over someone who posted weeks ago and compare them to people making completely different non insane points, but when challenged on things you can't weasel out of you're Wimpy offering your posts later for a hamburger today because substantive answers will require paragraphs of text with supporting citations?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:because substantive answers will require paragraphs of text with supporting citations? oh okay carry on with your non substantive posts I guess
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:because substantive answers will require paragraphs of text with supporting citations? Do you feel posting responses of little substance is helpful in a discussion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Do you feel posting responses of little substance is helpful in a discussion?  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:because substantive answers will require paragraphs of text with supporting citations? I'm sure. Also, while you're on this kick about how it's impossible to change the constitution, what's your opinion on the 21st amendment. Or Amendments to the constitution in general. It seems odd to me that you're saying we can't change the law because we can't change the constitution, yet we have a bunch of things that basically add on to the constitution, thus changing it. Cause it seems like all this "can't change the law," stuff is the truly dangerous idea. I mean, just imagine where we'd be with the law unchanged on stuff like Slavery, Segregation, and Prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
To be fair changing the constitution is a pretty high bar, but I think a lot of these "that's unconstitutional" criticisms are bad mostly because generally there is a way to accomplish the same or a similar goal without necessarily changing the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Anora posted:I'm sure. When people say "that would be unconstitutional", they aren't saying that it's impossible to change, just pointing out that it's incredibly unlikely and difficult and that there might be more productive avenues to go down. (And when the constitutional things you're trying to get around are the Confrontation Clause, they may also wonder if you realize what effects removing it would have.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
A high bar that has sometimes been needed, historically. Which is why it is kind of silly to use that as a catch all means to shoot down a discussion. It's not impossible to change the constitution, which for the purposes of this thread, is good enough to theorize about what ever changes could be made, should they be needed.Kalman posted:When people say "that would be unconstitutional", they aren't saying that it's impossible to change, just pointing out that it's incredibly unlikely and difficult and that there might be more productive avenues to go down. That would be the part in the discussion where the person uses their knowledge to explain all of the ways it would not work or go wrong, instead of smugly telling people that they don't know what they are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:That would be the part in the discussion where the person uses their knowledge to explain all of the ways it would not work or go wrong, instead of smugly telling people that they don't know what they are talking about. We did. People mostly (with some exceptions) don't pay attention and then call the people trying to explain why it was a problem shills and apologists, accuse them of being racist and not caring, etc. And at this point it would probably be easier to fire every cop in the country and hire the entirety of the Norwegian, British, and German police forces in their place than to amend the constitution in a meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Kalman posted:When people say "that would be unconstitutional", they aren't saying that it's impossible to change, just pointing out that it's incredibly unlikely and difficult and that there might be more productive avenues to go down. I think there are times that when someone imprecisely says something along the lines of "how can we make sure body cams are admissible as evidence?" Then it seems some people decides that mean: we should make it magic special evidence, requiring changing the constitution versus mandating funding and staffing of a Body Cam Evidence Tech in body cam grants so that we can eliminate the "oops no one to authenticate the body cam" problem without changing the constitution
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We did. People mostly (with some exceptions) don't pay attention and then call the people trying to explain why it was a problem shills and apologists, accuse them of being racist and not caring, etc. I dunno. I have been reading this thread for a while now, and I don't think I remember any distinct attempts at simply explaining why a proposal would not work and also have the opposite effect. It could have been that they were buried deep in smug sniping, which kind of dilutes one's ability to come off as well informed or particularly concerned, and leads others to respond with attacks of their own. It is possible to explain why something is a bad idea without appealing to authority or making snarky comments about how people are stupid or why they are kind of the reason things are wrong with the world. Those kind of comments are why apologist and racist are being thrown around so much (Outside of the occasional actual bigot posting in the thread). And multiple people have pretty thoroughly explained that, but it doesn't seemed to have helped much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think there are times that when someone imprecisely says something along the lines of "how can we make sure body cams are admissible as evidence?" Then it seems some people decides that mean: People started off with the former and eventually wound up at the latter (well, some of them) after repeated explanations of why that particular video wasn't usable and what the actual requirements are. Absent those explanations, they'd have been stuck at "it should have come in and that prosecutor/judge was clearly corrupt for not getting it in!!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think there are times that when someone imprecisely says something along the lines of "how can we make sure body cams are admissible as evidence?" Then it seems some people decides that mean: Devor posted:Why is introducing unverified video evidence a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Are y'all for real making GBS threads on AR for saying "OK, I'm going to put together a formal response when I have the time?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
edit: Link to full video farther down. Sandra bland video dash cam video. DWB all the way. Officer was tailgating her and when she yielded he pulled her over for failure to signal. Then he's all set with the written warning, but decides she needs to exit the vehicle because she violated his ego. And her attitude will be sure to bring out all the racists to say she was just acting all non-white. DARPA fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I dunno. I have been reading this thread for a while now, and I don't think I remember any distinct attempts at simply explaining why a proposal would not work and also have the opposite effect. It could have been that they were buried deep in smug sniping, which kind of dilutes one's ability to come off as well informed or particularly concerned, and leads others to respond with attacks of their own. That "I'm concerned with how the criminal justice system treats minorities so let's get rid of a constitutionally mandated protection for defendants" is a bad idea ought to be self-evident
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That "I'm concerned with how the criminal justice system treats minorities so let's get rid of a constitutionally mandated protection for defendants" is a bad idea ought to be self-evident Did anyone say those words? Because I feel like I remember them saying to get rid of them for COPS, not everyone, but the response to that was that creating different rights for different groups of people would be bad. The response to that was that cops already have different rights than other people, and that is about the time where people started getting annoyed with appeals to authority in the thread, if I remember correctly,.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Are you implying Devor wants to allow unverified video as evidence in all cases? It seems to me that he was asking a question and pointing out what the problem is, video evidence exists that could have been used to charge the police for their wrong doing. That's precisely the problem trabisnikof was pointing out, you're taking a question or implication or even an outright stupid statement and ignoring the problem in favor of pouncing on a potentially stupid thing that was said. It's almost as though you don't think there was any problem with how it all went down. If you really think there is a problem shouldn't you say something like "you can't do that because of X and Y, but if you did Z it would satisfy your concern as well as mine". Instead you go to the standard "it's unconstitutional" or whatever other bullshit argument you come up with, it really seems like you're not concerned with the issue at hand and are more interested in pointing out how the system is not flawed. blarzgh posted:Are y'all for real making GBS threads on AR for saying "OK, I'm going to put together a formal response when I have the time?" I think people are annoyed that he's participating in a conversation where he's claiming to know the answers but not providing them, his excuse is "I'll tell you all about it later".
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Are y'all for real making GBS threads on AR for saying "OK, I'm going to put together a formal response when I have the time?" He's saying that if AR only has time for snarky one liners that don't contribute to the discussion, maybe she should just wait until she has time to make posts that do contribute. This is very clear and obvious and it's also clear you're being obtuse on purpose, which seems pretty standard for you so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Are you implying Devor wants to allow unverified video as evidence in all cases? It seems to me that he was asking a question and pointing out what the problem is, video evidence exists that could have been used to charge the police for their wrong doing. The bold part basically represents what I have been trying to say more precisely. Which is why I made that post I made earlier. I look forward to AR's reply this weekend since it would do a lot to shed light on their actual opinion on these topics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Did anyone say those words? Because I feel like I remember them saying to get rid of them for COPS, not everyone,    Cops are people, too. Cops don't have "extra rights." Everyone has the same constitutional rights. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Here's the full dash video of Sandra Bland - there's like a whole hour here. The incredibly unsafe lane change happens at 1:55 and the rest starts from there: 9:15 is where he goes loving insane. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/07/21/police-release-sandra-bland-arrest-vid.html pathetic little tramp fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Cops are people, too. Funnily enough, so are the unarmed people who seem to get gunned down on a regular basis. Perhaps the first step would be for the officer, the initiator of the confrontation, to perhaps keep that in mind before pulling a woman out of her car for not respecting the officer's request to stop smoking? But of course, why bother actually discussing the matter at hand when you can just post a couple of images and again go with the lazy as poo poo "not all cops"defense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The bold part basically represents what I have been trying to say more precisely. No one actually knows. Here, anyways. In absence of evidentiary rules, Missouri where the incident happened, uses guidelines written by the bar association. There are multiple avenues of authentication without someone in the video saying 'yea, that's me', but how a judge in Missouri would rule or why the prosecutor did not pursue them is gonna be idle speculation as far as this thread goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Raerlynn posted:the lazy as poo poo "not all cops"defense. Talk about lazy, can't even be bothered to read the quoted text - the question was 'why shouldn't we suspend constitutional rights for cops'? and the answer was 'because cops are people too." Nothing to do with a cigarette person
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:14
|
|