|
On September 22 2018 05:56 IgnE wrote:
is it just me or are some of you talking about trump like hes not a total idiot? trump a byronic hero? more like the man of la mancha tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy world
Maybe he got lucky at picking windmill, but he definitely tilted at a couple things that were very much in need of a brutal takedown. Consider a man that operates on gut instinct, particularly flawed, but just so happens to direct his rage at a target very deserving of it. He's going to die from it, both from his own nature and the determined enemy that likes the state of things, but man was that target deserving. He's kind of like the broken clock, and the lucky thing is this is the moment it's telling the correct time.
The hero part is his boorishness and stubbornness are the only allies that would make it even possible for him to make a dent. Compare with some shrinking small man that gets lucky with his object of ire, but retreats in the face of tearing it apart.
|
On September 22 2018 06:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 05:56 IgnE wrote:
is it just me or are some of you talking about trump like hes not a total idiot? trump a byronic hero? more like the man of la mancha tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy world Maybe he got lucky at picking windmill, but he definitely tilted at a couple things that were very much in need of a brutal takedown. Consider a man that operates on gut instinct, particularly flawed, but just so happens to direct his rage at a target very deserving of it. He's going to die from it, both from his own nature and the determined enemy that likes the state of things, but man was that target deserving. He's kind of like the broken clock, and the lucky thing is this is the moment it's telling the correct time. The hero part is his boorishness and stubbornness are the only allies that would make it even possible for him to make a dent. Compare with some shrinking small man that gets lucky with his object of ire, but retreats in the face of tearing it apart.
xDaunt thinks Trump has the potential to be truly great, while Danglars thinks Trump is a boorish, stubborn, broken clock.
I'm leaning towards danglars description if I'm picking between the two.
On September 22 2018 03:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2018 00:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2018 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2018 22:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 17:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2018 16:20 Danglars wrote:
If Trump can pull off some reforms, even if it's only from Congress being so shocked at how the FBI, Justice Department, and Intelligence Agencies behaved that they're forced to pass legislation, the faults will pale by comparison.
The way the FBI was used in the tail end of the Obama administration was a disgrace. The federal government does not have the right to wiretap its citizens, but obviously the protocols were evaded and post-hoc justified. Furthermore, the fact that this happened in the context of a Democratic Presidential campaign coordinating with a Democratic Presidential Administration through Steele/Ohr to nail a Republican campaign and presidency is just insult to injury. That's all without getting into the radical deviancy of figures like Comey and McCabe and Strzok. If Trump manages to get to the bottom of this and correct the record, he's practically a Byronic hero. He breaks stifling regs, finally has sane Israeli-American and Palestinian-American relations, good UN ambassador, tax cuts, judicial appointees, and that will all just be gravy.
It doesn't make him any less deserving of the denunciations that frequently are accurate. I see a lot of people like GH who list out the angles in the hopes of arriving at "How could he ever be anything but 'utterly unacceptable.' The national government's in kind of a bad state, and it's not because of golf games and tweeting. The unelected half is up in arms against the elected half, and will not cede power for their own protection and a perverse perception of the good of the country. We can afford to put all that junk on the back burner (and thankfully an electoral majority made a similarly right decision back in 2016, a fact for which I am forever grateful). I have to concede if he cracked down on the FBI that would score some serious points. Of course I don't think for a second that's going to be the outcome of this. It is pretty much the only thing on that list I would personally consider positive, but I can understand how you guys would like that other stuff. The radical decline in the credibility of the FBI and Justice department in the eyes of conservatives is pretty huge imo. They were practically untouchable prior to Trump, you and xDaunt being some of their most fervent defenders. Now you guys talk about them as if they are executing a massive criminal conspiracy. That's something conservatives/Republicans would have rejected outright during the Bush administration. Turns out they've always been criminal dirtbags, even back when many people on the right thought they were beyond reproach. I've never been a fan of the FBI or any other law enforcement in general for its own sake. What I am a huge proponent of is law and order. To the extent that the FBI or any other agency breaks the law or abuses its authority, it should burn like anyone else. Fair enough, though I'm pretty sure I've seen both of you cite their homocide numbers uncritically and have both been extremely skeptical of systemic problems resulting in the massive violations of people's constitutional rights, disproportionately POC particularly Black. Stop and Frisk in New York comes to mind. EDIT: (I could be misremembering all of that so you guys can clarify if you like) You think any of them (law enforcement agencies) aren't corrupted beyond saving? If not which ones and what leaders are you looking at? EDIT: I take that back. Law enforcement and other public officials should burn worse when they break the law in their official capacities due to their abuse of the public trust. I think I just kinda presumed that anyway. I think it's clear they don't and I'm not sure you see that as big of a problem as I do? You and I differ on two key points. First, I don't start with the presumption that all law enforcement agencies are irredeemably corrupt. Most law enforcement is good. Even with all of the shade that I have thrown on the FBI recently, really my criticisms are directed at the top brass as opposed to the regular officers. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I'm not willing to give the criminal a pass just because law enforcement may be somewhat out of line. The need for law enforcement is a reaction to the existence of the criminal. Eliminate the criminal, and suddenly law enforcement is less necessary. This is why I am critical of communities and/or peoples that produce a lot of criminals. Do you think law enforcement from local PD's to the FBI are adequately held to account for their mistakes and crimes? In a general sense, probably not. That sounds extremely problematic. Having law enforcement from local PD's to the FBI not adequately being held to account for mistakes and crimes is about the worst thing that can happen to such groups. How can anyone trust them to hold others to account when they aren't? Meanwhile Florida can strip your right to vote for life for stealing a TV. Law enforcement HAS to be held to a higher standard (I think we agree on that) and they aren't even being treated as strictly as a Black guy in Florida. Yes, it's clearly a problem, but the real issue is how big of a problem is it? Recognizing that there are bad actors in police departments and also recognizing that authorities sometimes go out of their way to shield the bad actors from liability (I'm about to file suit on one of these cases), the question is whether the conduct in question is so pervasive so as to warrant abolition of the institutions or to otherwise call into question the validity of the entire law enforcement process. I don't think that it is so pervasive.
How accurate do you think your perception of how big of a problem it is actually is?
Do you think you're abreast of the intricacies and prevalence or is it something you've payed some attention to but you don't really have a firm grasp of the variety, depth, or pervasiveness of corruption and a cultures of avoiding accountability?
Do you at least leave open the possibility that your perception of how bad the problem is could be colored by no one you know or care about having their rights egregiously violated, unjustly imprisoned, beaten, framed, robbed, killed, raped, by law enforcement (without them being held accountable). But there are millions of us who have had that happen to us or someone we care about.
To us, to those victims, there is little doubt that the problem is far worse than you seem to think. Do you genuinely think that your perspective is accurate enough to say with confidence that you aren't underestimating the severity of the problem?
|
On September 22 2018 05:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless, the bottom line is that it is clear that Trump has won. The FBI and DOJ are going to take a very hard fall. All the evidence suggests that the FBI/DOJ are going to fall, but he's pretty inept and could still mess things up. I have no idea why DOJ actors or McCabe are slamming Rosenstein right now, when he was such a useful blockade to Mueller's mandate and department transparency. Maybe he wasn't playing ball on obstructing the release of DOJ information that Trump demanded? Maybe he didn't think all this can be delayed and drawn out beyond the midterms and new term to stop the Congressional investigations? As a stonewaller and maybe useful idiot that's allowed to keep his personal integrity, he seemed more fitted with the leaking crew and resistance-from-within than somebody to cast out. Or maybe this is just McCabe's contacts hoping to get revenge for his own personal ouster. Comey memos. Now McCabe memos. What's next? Maybe Lynch memos, Rice memos, Yates memos?
It’s obvious that Trump’s camp didn’t make the leak to the NYT given how anti-Trump the article is overall (also that its NYT). Someone opposed to Trump made the leak. I wonder if it was McCabe trying to deflect blame from himself? It seems like Trump’s pending declassification of the FISA application (yes, he still going to do it, he is just letting the DOJ and NSA go through the motions) and other materials has people running for cover.
|
Good, Grassley finally ended the Ford charade. I really don’t understand who she thinks she is making the demands that she did. She could not have come across as more of a bitch if she tried, allegations be damned. She overplayed her hand badly.
Edit: FFS, he pussied out.
|
On September 22 2018 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 06:12 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 05:56 IgnE wrote:
is it just me or are some of you talking about trump like hes not a total idiot? trump a byronic hero? more like the man of la mancha tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy world Maybe he got lucky at picking windmill, but he definitely tilted at a couple things that were very much in need of a brutal takedown. Consider a man that operates on gut instinct, particularly flawed, but just so happens to direct his rage at a target very deserving of it. He's going to die from it, both from his own nature and the determined enemy that likes the state of things, but man was that target deserving. He's kind of like the broken clock, and the lucky thing is this is the moment it's telling the correct time. The hero part is his boorishness and stubbornness are the only allies that would make it even possible for him to make a dent. Compare with some shrinking small man that gets lucky with his object of ire, but retreats in the face of tearing it apart. xDaunt thinks Trump has the potential to be truly great, while Danglars thinks Trump is a boorish, stubborn, broken clock. I'm leaning towards danglars description if I'm picking between the two. Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 03:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2018 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2018 00:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2018 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2018 22:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 17:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2018 16:20 Danglars wrote:
If Trump can pull off some reforms, even if it's only from Congress being so shocked at how the FBI, Justice Department, and Intelligence Agencies behaved that they're forced to pass legislation, the faults will pale by comparison.
The way the FBI was used in the tail end of the Obama administration was a disgrace. The federal government does not have the right to wiretap its citizens, but obviously the protocols were evaded and post-hoc justified. Furthermore, the fact that this happened in the context of a Democratic Presidential campaign coordinating with a Democratic Presidential Administration through Steele/Ohr to nail a Republican campaign and presidency is just insult to injury. That's all without getting into the radical deviancy of figures like Comey and McCabe and Strzok. If Trump manages to get to the bottom of this and correct the record, he's practically a Byronic hero. He breaks stifling regs, finally has sane Israeli-American and Palestinian-American relations, good UN ambassador, tax cuts, judicial appointees, and that will all just be gravy.
It doesn't make him any less deserving of the denunciations that frequently are accurate. I see a lot of people like GH who list out the angles in the hopes of arriving at "How could he ever be anything but 'utterly unacceptable.' The national government's in kind of a bad state, and it's not because of golf games and tweeting. The unelected half is up in arms against the elected half, and will not cede power for their own protection and a perverse perception of the good of the country. We can afford to put all that junk on the back burner (and thankfully an electoral majority made a similarly right decision back in 2016, a fact for which I am forever grateful). I have to concede if he cracked down on the FBI that would score some serious points. Of course I don't think for a second that's going to be the outcome of this. It is pretty much the only thing on that list I would personally consider positive, but I can understand how you guys would like that other stuff. The radical decline in the credibility of the FBI and Justice department in the eyes of conservatives is pretty huge imo. They were practically untouchable prior to Trump, you and xDaunt being some of their most fervent defenders. Now you guys talk about them as if they are executing a massive criminal conspiracy. That's something conservatives/Republicans would have rejected outright during the Bush administration. Turns out they've always been criminal dirtbags, even back when many people on the right thought they were beyond reproach. I've never been a fan of the FBI or any other law enforcement in general for its own sake. What I am a huge proponent of is law and order. To the extent that the FBI or any other agency breaks the law or abuses its authority, it should burn like anyone else. Fair enough, though I'm pretty sure I've seen both of you cite their homocide numbers uncritically and have both been extremely skeptical of systemic problems resulting in the massive violations of people's constitutional rights, disproportionately POC particularly Black. Stop and Frisk in New York comes to mind. EDIT: (I could be misremembering all of that so you guys can clarify if you like) You think any of them (law enforcement agencies) aren't corrupted beyond saving? If not which ones and what leaders are you looking at? EDIT: I take that back. Law enforcement and other public officials should burn worse when they break the law in their official capacities due to their abuse of the public trust. I think I just kinda presumed that anyway. I think it's clear they don't and I'm not sure you see that as big of a problem as I do? You and I differ on two key points. First, I don't start with the presumption that all law enforcement agencies are irredeemably corrupt. Most law enforcement is good. Even with all of the shade that I have thrown on the FBI recently, really my criticisms are directed at the top brass as opposed to the regular officers. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I'm not willing to give the criminal a pass just because law enforcement may be somewhat out of line. The need for law enforcement is a reaction to the existence of the criminal. Eliminate the criminal, and suddenly law enforcement is less necessary. This is why I am critical of communities and/or peoples that produce a lot of criminals. Do you think law enforcement from local PD's to the FBI are adequately held to account for their mistakes and crimes? In a general sense, probably not. That sounds extremely problematic. Having law enforcement from local PD's to the FBI not adequately being held to account for mistakes and crimes is about the worst thing that can happen to such groups. How can anyone trust them to hold others to account when they aren't? Meanwhile Florida can strip your right to vote for life for stealing a TV. Law enforcement HAS to be held to a higher standard (I think we agree on that) and they aren't even being treated as strictly as a Black guy in Florida. Yes, it's clearly a problem, but the real issue is how big of a problem is it? Recognizing that there are bad actors in police departments and also recognizing that authorities sometimes go out of their way to shield the bad actors from liability (I'm about to file suit on one of these cases), the question is whether the conduct in question is so pervasive so as to warrant abolition of the institutions or to otherwise call into question the validity of the entire law enforcement process. I don't think that it is so pervasive. How accurate do you think your perception of how big of a problem it is actually is? Do you think you're abreast of the intricacies and prevalence or is it something you've payed some attention to but you don't really have a firm grasp of the variety, depth, or pervasiveness of corruption and a cultures of avoiding accountability? Do you at least leave open the possibility that your perception of how bad the problem is could be colored by no one you know or care about having their rights egregiously violated, unjustly imprisoned, beaten, framed, robbed, killed, raped, by law enforcement (without them being held accountable). But there are millions of us who have had that happen to us or someone we care about. To us, to those victims, there is little doubt that the problem is far worse than you seem to think. Do you genuinely think that your perspective is accurate enough to say with confidence that you aren't underestimating the severity of the problem?
Well, I’m certainly open to looking at the studies if you have them.
|
On September 22 2018 13:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2018 06:12 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 05:56 IgnE wrote:
is it just me or are some of you talking about trump like hes not a total idiot? trump a byronic hero? more like the man of la mancha tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy world Maybe he got lucky at picking windmill, but he definitely tilted at a couple things that were very much in need of a brutal takedown. Consider a man that operates on gut instinct, particularly flawed, but just so happens to direct his rage at a target very deserving of it. He's going to die from it, both from his own nature and the determined enemy that likes the state of things, but man was that target deserving. He's kind of like the broken clock, and the lucky thing is this is the moment it's telling the correct time. The hero part is his boorishness and stubbornness are the only allies that would make it even possible for him to make a dent. Compare with some shrinking small man that gets lucky with his object of ire, but retreats in the face of tearing it apart. xDaunt thinks Trump has the potential to be truly great, while Danglars thinks Trump is a boorish, stubborn, broken clock. I'm leaning towards danglars description if I'm picking between the two. On September 22 2018 03:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2018 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2018 00:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2018 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2018 22:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 17:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I have to concede if he cracked down on the FBI that would score some serious points. Of course I don't think for a second that's going to be the outcome of this. It is pretty much the only thing on that list I would personally consider positive, but I can understand how you guys would like that other stuff.
The radical decline in the credibility of the FBI and Justice department in the eyes of conservatives is pretty huge imo. They were practically untouchable prior to Trump, you and xDaunt being some of their most fervent defenders. Now you guys talk about them as if they are executing a massive criminal conspiracy. That's something conservatives/Republicans would have rejected outright during the Bush administration. Turns out they've always been criminal dirtbags, even back when many people on the right thought they were beyond reproach. I've never been a fan of the FBI or any other law enforcement in general for its own sake. What I am a huge proponent of is law and order. To the extent that the FBI or any other agency breaks the law or abuses its authority, it should burn like anyone else. Fair enough, though I'm pretty sure I've seen both of you cite their homocide numbers uncritically and have both been extremely skeptical of systemic problems resulting in the massive violations of people's constitutional rights, disproportionately POC particularly Black. Stop and Frisk in New York comes to mind. EDIT: (I could be misremembering all of that so you guys can clarify if you like) You think any of them (law enforcement agencies) aren't corrupted beyond saving? If not which ones and what leaders are you looking at? EDIT: I take that back. Law enforcement and other public officials should burn worse when they break the law in their official capacities due to their abuse of the public trust. I think I just kinda presumed that anyway. I think it's clear they don't and I'm not sure you see that as big of a problem as I do? You and I differ on two key points. First, I don't start with the presumption that all law enforcement agencies are irredeemably corrupt. Most law enforcement is good. Even with all of the shade that I have thrown on the FBI recently, really my criticisms are directed at the top brass as opposed to the regular officers. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I'm not willing to give the criminal a pass just because law enforcement may be somewhat out of line. The need for law enforcement is a reaction to the existence of the criminal. Eliminate the criminal, and suddenly law enforcement is less necessary. This is why I am critical of communities and/or peoples that produce a lot of criminals. Do you think law enforcement from local PD's to the FBI are adequately held to account for their mistakes and crimes? In a general sense, probably not. That sounds extremely problematic. Having law enforcement from local PD's to the FBI not adequately being held to account for mistakes and crimes is about the worst thing that can happen to such groups. How can anyone trust them to hold others to account when they aren't? Meanwhile Florida can strip your right to vote for life for stealing a TV. Law enforcement HAS to be held to a higher standard (I think we agree on that) and they aren't even being treated as strictly as a Black guy in Florida. Yes, it's clearly a problem, but the real issue is how big of a problem is it? Recognizing that there are bad actors in police departments and also recognizing that authorities sometimes go out of their way to shield the bad actors from liability (I'm about to file suit on one of these cases), the question is whether the conduct in question is so pervasive so as to warrant abolition of the institutions or to otherwise call into question the validity of the entire law enforcement process. I don't think that it is so pervasive. How accurate do you think your perception of how big of a problem it is actually is? Do you think you're abreast of the intricacies and prevalence or is it something you've payed some attention to but you don't really have a firm grasp of the variety, depth, or pervasiveness of corruption and a cultures of avoiding accountability? Do you at least leave open the possibility that your perception of how bad the problem is could be colored by no one you know or care about having their rights egregiously violated, unjustly imprisoned, beaten, framed, robbed, killed, raped, by law enforcement (without them being held accountable). But there are millions of us who have had that happen to us or someone we care about. To us, to those victims, there is little doubt that the problem is far worse than you seem to think. Do you genuinely think that your perspective is accurate enough to say with confidence that you aren't underestimating the severity of the problem? Well, I’m certainly open to looking at the studies if you have them.
I'm presuming that's a yes. I've posted plenty of related information let's just start with NYC.
Stop and frisk
Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers can legally stop and detain people only when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. In New York, however, it became common for police officers to stop mainly minority citizens, with no basis for suspicion, and then make up a reason.
In 2011, at the height of the program, the police stopped people on the streets an astonishing 685,000 times — up from just 97,000 a decade earlier. In practical terms, this meant that individuals in heavily policed neighborhoods could be stopped on the street without cause multiple times within a given year.
Plaintiffs in the case of Floyd v. City of New York, filed in 2008, alleged that the New York City police were stopping people on the basis of race, without justification. A statistical study of nearly 4.5 million stops produced at trial showed that only 6 percent of stops resulted in arrests and 6 percent resulted in summonses — which meant that 88 percent of the people stopped had been doing nothing wrong.
www.nytimes.com
6 percent resulted in summons, wonder how those turned out? (note those are NOT convictions either, so the actual number of people that were legitimately suspicious let alone actually justifying being arrested/summoned is even lower)
New York City has agreed to pay up to $75 million to settle a federal class-action lawsuit that accused its Police Department of issuing hundreds of thousands of criminal summonses that were later found to be without legal justification
Lawyers for the plaintiffs had asserted that the summonses were part of a policy that was “selectively and disproportionately enforced in minority communities.” That claim was also a focus of earlier lawsuits that had challenged the department’s policing philosophy that relied on stop, question and frisk encounters.
The proposed settlement filed on Monday was seen by lawyers for the plaintiffs as another repudiation of a city policing policy. It covers at least 900,000 summonses, issued from 2007 to 2015, that were dismissed on grounds of legal insufficiency, which a federal judge later found was “tantamount to a decision that probable cause was presumptively lacking.”
www.nytimes.com
Can you think of a more recent or more egregious massive violation of people's constitutional rights not committed by a federal law enforcement agency?
|
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD.
|
Now here is a big deal:
(Bloomberg) -- The White House has drafted an executive order for President Donald Trump’s signature that would instruct federal antitrust and law enforcement agencies to open probes into the practices of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook Inc., and other social media companies.
The order is in its preliminary stages and hasn’t yet been run past other government agencies, said a White House official. Bloomberg News obtained a draft of the order.
The document instructs U.S. antitrust authorities to “thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws.” It instructs other government agencies to recommend within a month after it’s signed, actions that could potentially “protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias.”
Read the Executive Order draft on bias in online platforms
The document doesn’t name any companies. If signed, the order would represent a significant escalation of Trump’s aversion to Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies, whom he’s publicly accused of silencing conservative voices and news sources online.
The press offices of Google, Facebook and Twitter didn’t respond Saturday to emails and telephone calls requesting comment outside of normal office hours.
Souce.
Normally I’m not in favor of the government interfering in private affairs, but the harm that the assholes at big tech are inflicting upon free speech and democratic values cannot be ignored. Twitter, in particular, is out of control. All of these companies are clearly colluding on political discrimination. Just look at how they systematically de-platformed Alex Jones (not that I am a fan).
|
On September 23 2018 00:23 xDaunt wrote:
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD.
Have you ever been arrested or summoned despite there being no legal justification?
|
On September 23 2018 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 00:23 xDaunt wrote:
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD. Have you ever been arrested or summoned despite there being no legal justification?
No, but I have represented those people. Given what I do, I’m a pretty good authority on damages. And like I said, real harm is inflicted when process is abused.
|
On September 23 2018 04:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2018 00:23 xDaunt wrote:
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD. Have you ever been arrested or summoned despite there being no legal justification? No, but I have represented those people. Given what I do, I’m a pretty good authority on damages. And like I said, real harm is inflicted when process is abused.
So you don't know personally what it feels like to have your safety, livelihood, or life threatened by false arrest, imprisonment, or harassment by law enforcement do you?
To have your 4th amendment rights violated with no practical recourse?
|
On September 23 2018 00:23 xDaunt wrote:
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD.
nah it does a lot of very serious long term damage. its prevalence and visibility erodes trust of police within the community, ultimately leading to the destabilization of law and order
|
On September 23 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2018 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2018 00:23 xDaunt wrote:
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD. Have you ever been arrested or summoned despite there being no legal justification? No, but I have represented those people. Given what I do, I’m a pretty good authority on damages. And like I said, real harm is inflicted when process is abused. So you don't know personally what it feels like to have your safety, livelihood, or life threatened by false arrest, imprisonment, or harassment by law enforcement do you? To have your 4th amendment rights violated with no practical recourse?
That line of argument doesn’t work with me given what I do, so don’t waste my time. Besides, I already acknowledged that abuse of process causes harm, so I don’t know what else you want. You are the one arguing that police departments are so rotten that they need to be abolished, so it is incumbent upon you to present a problem that goes beyond training issues. Let’s see some serious, irredeemable corruption.
|
On September 23 2018 05:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 00:23 xDaunt wrote:
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD. nah it does a lot of very serious long term damage. its prevalence and visibility erodes trust of police within the community, ultimately leading to the destabilization of law and order
I was talking about harm to the individual. But yes, I agree that over-aggressive stop and frisk policing is detrimental to the community, which is why I said that it is a problem that should be solved with better training.
|
On September 23 2018 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2018 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2018 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2018 00:23 xDaunt wrote:
It’s generally hard to get that excited about stop and frisk given that no long term damage is done to victims. It falls into the category of a shitty inconvenience and is a problem that should be solved with better training. The free-wheeling issuance of summonses falls under the same category, though there is obviously real harm being inflicted in those circumstances. These aren’t the kinds of problems that warrant abolition of the NYPD. Have you ever been arrested or summoned despite there being no legal justification? No, but I have represented those people. Given what I do, I’m a pretty good authority on damages. And like I said, real harm is inflicted when process is abused. So you don't know personally what it feels like to have your safety, livelihood, or life threatened by false arrest, imprisonment, or harassment by law enforcement do you? To have your 4th amendment rights violated with no practical recourse? That line of argument doesn’t work with me given what I do, so don’t waste my time. Besides, I already acknowledged that abuse of process causes harm, so I don’t know what else you want. You are the one arguing that police departments are so rotten that they need to be abolished, so it is incumbent upon you to present a problem that goes beyond training issues. Let’s see some serious, irredeemable corruption.
Sure it does. You don't, that matters. I would think massive and systemic violations of people's constitutional rights would be enough, but apparently you think it can be trained away.
I'm not especially interested in giving you a dissertation on how these violations have always been occurring or how police union contracts prevent basic accountability, or the countless other issues. I'm satisfied with establishing that you're unaware of this stuff and that your opinion is necessarily deficient in that way.
|
C’mon, man. You are smarter than this. Look at what I wrote and apply some logic. I conceded the harm and said it was a problem. Where we differ is that I have a far more targeted solution to the problem than you do. What you have yet to demonstrate is why the limited solution is inadequate and why the wrecking ball is necessary.
|
On September 23 2018 05:49 xDaunt wrote:
C’mon, man. You are smarter than this. Look at what I wrote and apply some logic. I conceded the harm and said it was a problem. Where we differ is that I have a far more targeted solution to the problem than you do. What you have yet to demonstrate is why the limited solution is inadequate and why the wrecking ball is necessary.
If there was some clear threshold where you would make that switch I may have more interest in demonstrating it, but I'm just not that interested in it at the moment. That your opinion is deficient of a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the issues is enough for me to move on for now. I do appreciate the (I presume) sincere inquisitiveness as to why I don't think training (which is, has and always will be an available option they've fought at nearly every turn) can realistically address the issues which have been prevalent through the entirety of the existence of these various law enforcement groups. But without a reasonable idea of how much or what type of issues it would take to pass the threshold in your view of necessitating a wrecking ball it sounds like an exercise in futility.
But next time I'm in the mood to list out the problems in law enforcement, I'll be happy to bookmark it, so whenever you'd like to dig into it we can. The place where we should be able to find a lot of agreement though is in obscene police union contracts.
You can start here if you want a better grasp of how accountability is intentionally avoided by law enforcement, making the idea that they are held to a higher (or even equal) standard completely laughable. That's one example of something that can't be trained away (not that police wouldn't fight having to be trained on it anyway).
|
On September 22 2018 05:56 IgnE wrote:
is it just me or are some of you talking about trump like hes not a total idiot? trump a byronic hero? more like the man of la mancha tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy world
Surely by now you are figuring out that the idea that Trump is a total idiot is preposterous. He is winning almost everywhere. Aggressive deregulation, tax cuts, and trade policy have created a boom that no one thought possible. Turns out that, contrary to what Obama said during the campaign, Trump does have a “magic wand.” Trump’s foreign policy has been fantastic. Not only has he provided much needed clarity to America’s global posturing (the best example being firmly aligning with Israel at the expense of Palestinians), but he is about to end the Korean War and eliminate North Korea as a rogue threat to American interests — something that W and Obama miserably failed to address. The most impressive part is that he is accomplishing all of this despite facing unprecedented amounts of domestic resistance inside and outside of his government. If nothing else, the NYT Rosenstein story makes it unequivocally clear that a substantial component of government is outright seditious. But guess what? Trump is about to beat them, too. Why do you think the NYT published that story now despite knowing about McCabe’s memos for months? It’s because of Trump’s declassification order. The truth is coming out, and the media needs to save face by getting ahead of the coming revelations. Trump has already won the war behind the scenes. He has crushed his political enemies and is driving them before him. All that’s left is to hear the lamentations of the women. And that will come soon enough as America learns that it has been lied to for two years by the media about this Russia nonsense and many other things.
|
So now we have a third person denying that Ford’s accusations are true. Everyone who jumped on Kavanaugh and presumed he was guilty should be embarrassed. What a fucking disgrace. Feinstein should be censured by the Senate.
EDIT: And yeah, I'm pretty comfortable saying that Ford's accusations constitute defamation now.
|
there’s a large difference between presuming his guilt and not assuming the accuser is a liar. unless you were speaking into the void i think you’d be hard pressed to find people calling for kavanaugh to already be in jail(metaphorically obv, or i guess literally should they be so bold) before we knew anything lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
