Breakdown In Civil Order

[Politesse]

Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.”

I would want to help both individuals, if possible. What would you do? Is your response different if the person on the sidewalk has no money with which to pay a medical bill?

 

[Trausti]

Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.”

I would want to help both individuals, if possible. What would you do? Is your response different if the person on the sidewalk has no money with which to pay a medical bill?

I’d want to help the victim; not coddle and make excuses for the perpetrator.

 

[Politesse]

Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.”

I would want to help both individuals, if possible. What would you do? Is your response different if the person on the sidewalk has no money with which to pay a medical bill?

I’d want to help the victim; not coddle and make excuses for the perpetrator.

How would you help the victim? And what would you do about the perpetrator?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.”

I would want to help both individuals, if possible. What would you do? Is your response different if the person on the sidewalk has no money with which to pay a medical bill?

Many conservatives get erections that require a doctor's assistance due to duration over the concept of prison time. They want people to suffer for the consequences of their actions (vaccine aside). That is why they scoff at the idea of rehabilitation. It isn't fun. It isn't justice to them. They'd rather "lock them away" and bear the expense instead of trying to get the person to be a viable member of society.

 

[Trausti]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/PiroshkyBakery/status/1424779696185610241[/TWEET]

 

[KeepTalking]

Here in Seattle it gets worse by the day. There has been a homeless camp outside the county court house for may years. At one point an entrance was closed because of risk of assauly.

Murders have occurred in the camp. Recently a person from the camp tried to rape a courthouse worker in a bathroom.

Gun violence is rising. Apparently random shootings of cars on the highway.

The local county and city govt appears helpless and unable to make any hard decisions for fear of being labeled biased in any way.

Our apparent new district attorney elect says she wants to tare down the entire justice system.

Wat is it like where you live?

Dogs and cats living in sin openly, here in Bellevegas, so basically no civil order left.

Murders were up in the first quarter of the year, mostly shootings, but we can't possibly do anything to curb gun violence, so nothing to do about that. It is my understanding that most other crime was down, with the exception of domestic violence. It also seems that the murder rate has more recently been leveling off. I would like to chalk it all up to the pandemic, but what the fuck do I know? Looking out my window, the current crop of neighbors are closer than this block has been in years, Trump-hating liberals, Trump-following conservatives, whites and minorities, all getting along and sharing food.

I thought the breakdown of civil order would involve something more dramatic, like zombies, or at the very least gangs ruling the streets in matching costumes, but it looks like I might be disappointed. Seems like it is going to be more BBQ, couples walking hand in hand down the street, and kids riding bicycles.

Do you feel safe looking forward?

As safe as I feel looking back. Of course I was robbed at gunpoint in the 80's, so maybe I feel even safer than when looking back.

Are you for traditional 'law and order' meaning police are there to prevent and pursue crime, or do you favor what is being called community policing or some form of it.

I think there is merit to both approaches. I think the police certainly should prevent crime and catch criminals, but I think there are a lot of crimes on the books that shouldn't be there.

I also think that some police departments are becoming far too militarized, and that some money currently budgeted to perpetuating that might be better used in other community service programs.

In Seattle community policing means letting communities and neighborhoods taking care of crime and drugs. No courts or criminal jounce except for extreme cases. No police except for special circumstances.

It sound like a horrible place, you should leave immediately. Don't come here.

 

[Tigers!]

Two lefties come upon a person who has just been robbed and beaten unconscious on the sidewalk. One lefty turns to the other and says: “We need to find who did this, and help them.”

I would want to help both individuals, if possible. What would you do? Is your response different if the person on the sidewalk has no money with which to pay a medical bill?

I’d want to help the victim; not coddle and make excuses for the perpetrator.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind.

 

[Tigers!]

I am not certain how increasing the corporate crime investigations will eliminate random shootings? Perhaps you could elaborate?

I am not certain why you consider that a necessary goal for alternatives to old fashioned policing, given that old fashioned policing has demonstrably failed to achieve that goal.

If at first you don't succeed, try something else.

The heavy handed authoritarian approach is obviously not working, so attempting an alternative is surely worthy of at least sufficient respect not to be branded a failure for not hitting a target that the current approach also cannot hit.

I am not saying that it will not work. I am saying is there a casual link between focusing on white collar crime that would reduce random shootings? If you focus on one to the detriment of the other then the neglected one will suffer. It should not be beyond the police to do both. If more resources are needed to do both then supply them.

 

[repoman]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/PiroshkyBakery/status/1424779696185610241[/TWEET]

Eastern Europeans are not as cucked as Western Europeans. They do speak out on things like this.

 

[Politesse]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/PiroshkyBakery/status/1424779696185610241[/TWEET]

Eastern Europeans are not as cucked as Western Europeans. They do speak out on things like this.

Is that why Eastern Europe is known for being so peaceful, orderly, and prosperous compared to the West?

 

[prideandfall]

So why should taxpayers foot the bill for a person who refuses to take personal responsibility for their life?

because they can, and with zero impact on the quality of life of anyone paying into it.
rather than basing my perception of the concept of civilization as being an apparatus which exists to facilitate commerce, elitism, and exclusion i view civilization as a mechanism for improving the quality of life of everyone who lives.

humans are herd animals, and civilization is just a herd that kept on growing - yes, because of the inconceivable size of it the original function is buried deep under layers of complication, the pragmatic compromises required for a social construct on this scale to even exist.
but at the end of the day, philosophically speaking, the entire point of civilization is to improve the lives of humans.
as such, i find it not only valid and warranted but entirely in keeping with the purpose of the enterprise in the first place to A. set a minimum standard of living that our technological progress has facilitated, and B. just give that to anyone who can't or won't acquire it on their own, because we have so much excess resources doing so is an irrelevant pittance.

rhetorically, i'd turn the question around: why should taxpayers and consumers foot the bill for people who refuse to take responsibility for their failed business models?
the economic structure of this country has made buying a house impossible for many and so they rent. rent prices have skyrocketed simply because "they can". people are becoming homeless because a huge swath of the economy is a scam predicated on trapping people in cycles of poverty in order to supply cheap labor, and thus they have no options for resource acquisition except for ones which are inadequate to allow for basic standards of living.

so, ok... fudrucker's needs to underpay their employees to the point where their employees can't survive in order to stay in business.
why should their employees suffer for a company that doesn't take responsibility for its business model not being economically viable?

 

[TSwizzle]

Here in Seattle it gets worse by the day. There has been a homeless camp outside the county court house for may years. At one point an entrance was closed because of risk of assauly.

Murders have occurred in the camp. Recently a person from the camp tried to rape a courthouse worker in a bathroom.

Gun violence is rising. Apparently random shootings of cars on the highway.

The local county and city govt appears helpless and unable to make any hard decisions for fear of being labeled biased in any way.

Our apparent new district attorney elect says she wants to tare down the entire justice system.

Wat is it like where you live?

Do you feel safe looking forward?

Are you for traditional 'law and order' meaning police are there to prevent and pursue crime, or do you favor what is being called community policing or some form of it.

In Seattle community policing means letting communities and neighborhoods taking care of crime and drugs. No courts or criminal jounce except for extreme cases. No police except for special circumstances.

Here in LA County it gets worse by the week. The homeless problem is out of control and politics prevents any proper solutions. Echo Park was just recently cleaned up and the homeless encampment (100+ people) were moved out. Activists tried to stop the eviction. The same is going on at Venice Beach. A popular spot for tourists, Venice is a mess. I was down there a couple of years ago and the place was filthy and stinking and it's much worse now. There is something going on to move the homeless but activists and local council members try to thwart it at every turn. Sherriff Villanueva is kicking up a fuss to get them moved. Crime in general is up, more homicides this year than last. The Los Angeles DA George Gascón is quite mental and is facing a recall effort. His reforms are just wacky.

 

[bilby]

That homelessness is considered a law enforcement issue, and that moving people on is seen as a solution, would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Eviction of homeless people from your area is like cleaning up your yard by throwing the garbage on the neighbour's lawn, while he is busy doing the same to you.

If people are sufficiently poor as to need to commit crimes to survive, they will commit crimes.

If (as is the case in most US cities) you spend more on policing to try to solve that crime problem than would be needed to provide the necessities of life to these people, so that crime wasn't necessary for them, then your system is insane and broken.

If your response to this is to double down on the stupid by spending even more on policing, your nation is insane and broken.

Fighting crime by making the cops into the biggest, baddest, and scariest thugs out there, in the hope of scaring the criminals into behaving, is only going to work if the criminals are well off enough not to need to overcome their fear of the cops in order to survive. If they are not, they will just respond by doing everything possible to make life harder for the police. And they will always outnumber the police.

You cannot force people to respect you. You can force them to fear you, but that's a VERY different thing.

Successful policing isn't even difficult. It's been understood for at least 150 years, and the way to do it is set out in the 'Peelian Principles' adopted for the first modern police force by Robert Peel:

1) To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by force and severity of legal punishment.

2) To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3) To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4) To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5) To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7) To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8) To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9) To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

If the authorities are not encouraging and following all of these principles in their law and order policies, then they are doing it wrong.

 

[Angry Floof]

That homelessness is considered a law enforcement issue, and that moving people on is seen as a solution, would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Eviction of homeless people from your area is like cleaning up your yard by throwing the garbage on the neighbour's lawn, while he is busy doing the same to you.

If people are sufficiently poor as to need to commit crimes to survive, they will commit crimes.

If (as is the case in most US cities) you spend more on policing to try to solve that crime problem than would be needed to provide the necessities of life to these people, so that crime wasn't necessary for them, then your system is insane and broken.

If your response to this is to double down on the stupid by spending even more on policing, your nation is insane and broken.

If you're too stupid or too callous to figure out a solution, you just blame the homeless, which is super easy to do when your whole world view is based in judging people as immoral.

You cannot force people ro respect you. You can force them to fear you, but that's a VERY different thing.

Which any baboon can do.

 

[Gun Nut]

Are you for traditional 'law and order' meaning police are there to prevent and pursue crime, or do you favor what is being called community policing or some form of it.

neither.

i favor "if we're going to spend collective resources (ie money from taxes) on something, spend it on removing the circumstances that lead to crime in the first place instead of wasting it on punishing people for failing to adhere to a rigged system."

have a camp of homeless people somewhere? spend whatever money is required to build a new apartment complex, staff it with mental health and social service professionals and minimal security to assist with truly unhinged people, and then give every homeless person an apartment for free.
while you're at it, give them a reasonable monthly income while they live there along with job training and programs to assist in social functioning.

if it's expensive, cut the budget for 'street police' and patrol cops down to almost nothing and then expand your white collar and corporate crime investigations 10 fold and you'll be swimming in money, and have eliminated the homeless completely while you were at it.

How idealistically naive to the fact that that VAST majority of homelessness is by intentional choice of a damaged mental state, often brought on by severe drug addiction.
Poverty and circumstance is an extremely RARE source of homelessness... your "solution" would be instantly destroyed by the 80% who are insane in that category. They would eat the 20% who have a repairable situation and turn anything you give them into shit.

The "solution" is incrassation into a mental institution... not that severe mental illness should be illegal... but shitting in public and being a raving lunatic.. and camping overnight where it is not zoned IS. Failure to seek help or accept help is the issue and is the difference to me.

 

[TSwizzle]

How idealistically naive to the fact that that VAST majority of homelessness is by intentional choice of a damaged mental state, often brought on by severe drug addiction.

Hmmm, I wouldn't go so far as to say a VAST majority for LA County. Certainly a majority, probably quite a large majority fall into that category. There are plenty of veterans that are being denied assistance that are camped outside the grounds. But yeah, the majority are junkies and mental cases. It's not people that have fallen on hard times and need a helping hand.

 

[Politesse]

How idealistically naive to the fact that that VAST majority of homelessness is by intentional choice of a damaged mental state, often brought on by severe drug addiction.
Poverty and circumstance is an extremely RARE source of homelessness... your "solution" would be instantly destroyed by the 80% who are insane in that category. They would eat the 20% who have a repairable situation and turn anything you give them into shit.

He blithely wrote, not only based on no data whatsoever, but indeed blatantly contradicting such data as exist.

 

[prideandfall]

How idealistically naive to the fact that that VAST majority of homelessness is by intentional choice of a damaged mental state, often brought on by severe drug addiction.

this has been asked and answered multiple times.
this claim is false, and not only is it false it's been proven false dozens of times but countless studies.
you are either blatantly lying in repeating a falsehood or you're so benightedly ignorant that you're physically incapable of comprehending observable facts if you're still trying to push this demonstrably idiotic narrative.

find one study that supports this wildly bullshit assertion.
we've already linked no less than 5 studies in this thread alone showing it's not true, and providing evidence directly in the opposite.
so back up your claim and show your work, or shut the absolute fuck up with this load of horse shit.

 

[ZiprHead]

Causes of homelessness

 Insufficient income and lack of affordable housing are the leading causes of homelessness:
o In 2012, 10.3 million renters (approximately one in four) had “extremely low incomes”
(ELI) as classified by HUD.35
In that same year, there were only 5.8 million rental units
affordable to the more than 10 million people identified as ELI.
36
o Additionally, only 31 out of every 100 of these affordable units were actually available to
people identified as ELI.37

 After paying their rent and utilities, 75% of ELI households end up with less than half of their
income left to pay for necessities such as food, medicine, transportation, or childcare.38

 The foreclosure crisis also played, and continues to play, a significant role in homelessness:
o In 2008, state and local homeless groups reported a 61% rise in homelessness since the
foreclosure crisis began.39

o Approximately 40% of families facing eviction due to foreclosure are renters; the problem
may continue to worsen as renters represent a rising segment of the U.S. population.40

 For women in particular, domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness.41

 According to the most recent annual survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, major cities across
the country report that top causes of homelessness among families were: (1) lack of affordable
housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, and (4) low wages, in that order.42 The same report found
that the top four causes of homelessness among unaccompanied individuals were (1) lack of
affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, (4) mental illness and the lack of needed
services, and (5) substance abuse and the lack of needed services.43

https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf

 

[Loren Pechtel]

this is a fine example of something i have been saying for many, many years: the myth of the 'self made man' in america is just that, a myth.
if you have money, property, wealth, possessions, whatever... you don't have it because you earned it. you only have it because everyone else decided to let you have it.

there is a cabal of political and economic fascists in america who evidently are completely unaware of the existence of the french revolution.
if you shit on the lower class long enough, eventually the lower class will have a "let's chop everyone's heads off" parade.

if you want social stability and rule of law and to get to have your plasma TV and new car without fear of it being stolen or fear of you being attacked and murdered, stop funding police and the military and supporting austerity and get on vastly expanding social services... and do it fucking fast.

america is on a fast track to have its upper class be literally destroyed, which is an outcome i personally welcome but would entail an awful lot of whining from an awful lot of fucking pathetic dipshits that i'd be forced to listen to.

It sounds like you're defending the people in the homeless encampment.

The horror.

What kind of cruel and heartless monster would defend people in need?

You are defending people who attempted to kill over things they didn't actually need.

Seattle and King county spend about $100k per homeless person. What interest is there in actually solving the problem with money like that?

What do they spend it on?
Mental health care might be a good start. But I don't actually believe that they spend anything remotely like that on all services to the homeless put together.

I'm guessing that you're quoting a rightwing news source with no credibility. That's just my guess.
Tom

The problem is in most cases you can't force someone to accept healthcare. Treatment for mental illness isn't easy, they prefer life on the street. There's also the problem that the drugs involved tend to have bad side effects--people get better decide the side effects are bad, and go back off their drugs.