Breakdown In Civil Order

[Derec]

And how will "demonizing" the children help?

First of all, 16 or 17 year olds, even 15 year olds, are hardly "children". They should know better, and when they should be held responsible for their actions. What people like "Brandon Johnson" calls "demonizing" is merely prosecuting them for crimes, be their violence against people or against property, that they commit. They should not be given a pass for being under 18 (or even under 25 as some want).

 

[Politesse]

And how will "demonizing" the children help?

First of all, 16 or 17 year olds, even 15 year olds, are hardly "children". They should know better, and when they should be held responsible for their actions. What people like "Brandon Johnson" calls "demonizing" is merely prosecuting them for crimes, be their violence against people or against property, that they commit. They should not be given a pass for being under 18 (or even under 25 as some want).

Your claim about what Johnson meant conflicts with what Johnson said. Which was that violence should by no means be tolerated, but that it isn't necessary to demonize everyone involved.

Your link is a pure red herring, as it isn't related to the situation we're discussing in any way, is not likely to be taken as a guide to policy any time soon, and doesn't suggest any clear new policy anyway. If your next post tries to discuss said link rather than what we are actually talking about, I will ignore it.

So let's stay on target: the utility of "demonizing" the people you hate. What good does it actually do to describe the people you re afraid of as "demons" or otherwise inhuman? What positive changes occur in the world because you used dehumanizing rhetoric to describe someone? Make your logical argument: why is it ever good, or helpful, or useful, to refer to a young adult as a demon?

 

[Politesse]

Spotted on a local news feed:




Just another day in paradise. I love that they "landed" on Merlot Drive. Was Cabernet Court already taken? Did they find Riesling Road too dry for a clear-weather touchdown?

 

[TSwizzle]

More chaos in San Francisco;

San Francisco's ex-fire commissioner has said the city is 'burning' after the District Attorney dropped charges against a vagrant who repeatedly bashed him in the head with a metal crowbar. Don Carmignani, 53, was left fighting for his life after being brutally attacked on April 12, when he sprayed pepper spray at the homeless man outside his mother's home in the Marina District. He suffered a fractured skull and jaw in the attack, and required 51 stitches after Garrett Doty, 24, allegedly beat him over the head with a crowbar.
chilling footage showing Doty grabbing the crowbar out of the trash and taking practice swings moments before the attack. Carmignani claims three people 'smoking crack cocaine' leaning up against his mother's door the morning of the attack. Speaking to CBS News, Carmignani said: 'It's sad. My city is in chaos. They're driving out all the locals and everyone that pays taxes. 'Something needs to change, the city is burning, and now you have the national guard coming in.

Daily Mail

Remember, Newsom had a ten year plan that would fix this

 

[Politesse]

More chaos in San Francisco;

San Francisco's ex-fire commissioner has said the city is 'burning' after the District Attorney dropped charges against a vagrant who repeatedly bashed him in the head with a metal crowbar. Don Carmignani, 53, was left fighting for his life after being brutally attacked on April 12, when he sprayed pepper spray at the homeless man outside his mother's home in the Marina District. He suffered a fractured skull and jaw in the attack, and required 51 stitches after Garrett Doty, 24, allegedly beat him over the head with a crowbar.
chilling footage showing Doty grabbing the crowbar out of the trash and taking practice swings moments before the attack. Carmignani claims three people 'smoking crack cocaine' leaning up against his mother's door the morning of the attack. Speaking to CBS News, Carmignani said: 'It's sad. My city is in chaos. They're driving out all the locals and everyone that pays taxes. 'Something needs to change, the city is burning, and now you have the national guard coming in.

Daily Mail

Remember, Newsom had a ten year plan that would fix this

Remember, you have no usable plan for dealing with the crisis either, and merely hope that voting for the whinier party will somehow end violent crime.

 

[Derec]

Remember, you have no usable plan for dealing with the crisis either,

First thing to do should be to prosecute violent criminals. The new DA (who is hardly an improvement on Red Chesa it seems) is lying that this is self-defense. Doty chased down his victim before the vicious beatdown.

San Francisco drops case against transient who bashed ex-fire commish with crowbar, says it was ‘self-defense’

 

[Politesse]

Yeah, all the tabloid journalism isn't helping your case much.

And what are you claiming, exactly? That homeless people should be denied to defend themselves in court when a crime has been alleged? The office investigated and concluded that Carmignani had incited the incident, and you have no reason to disagree with them except that the Post and the Daily Mail are telling you a very dramatic story about the events, while nearly admitting that they themselves previously lied about another case in the very same city, the Bob Lee murder, not months ago. The very first sentence of the article in your post is a small lie, in fact. While the prosecutors (not the DA, who has nothing to do with this) have notified their client that they intend to drop charges lest he himself end up incriminating himself in court, they have not actually dropped the charges yet, though they almost certainly will. Carmignani came very close to incriminating himself just in a media interview today:

"I didn't go out there to fight anyone. I'm trying to get them down the road, go to the park," said Carmignani. "It's three-on-one."

Which is not the way you would describe just walking down the street and minding your own business, is it? He more or less admitted to starting something, and that's when he knew he was talking to a news reporter. Imagine what cross-examination of witnesses might uncover. Apparently he's not only done this before, but done it at least eight times. A fact you would have us believe is completely made up, I suppose? Eight incidents, all phony?

The prosecutors dropped the case because the person they would be effectively put in the awkward position of prosecuting had a solid case for self-defense and they didn't want to risk it. In my opinion, people who violently assault homeless people without cause are not worth feeling bad for if the chickens come home to roost. What did he think was going to happen, the city was going to cheer him on for playing Batman and beating on the homeless? These vigilante attacks on the homeless are becoming more and more common in the City, and they are disgusting.

 

[TSwizzle]

FFS, the video clearly shows Carmignani running for his life while Doty chases him down clubbing him with a metal pole.

 

[Politesse]

FFS, the video clearly shows Carmignani running for his life while Doty chases him down clubbing him with a metal pole.

That is not inconsistent with what the investigation revealed about Carmignani's activities.

 

[TSwizzle]

The prosecutors dropped the case because the person they would be effectively put in the awkward position of prosecuting had a solid case for self-defense

Nah. Doty is chasing his victim down the street. Carmignani is running away. That's not self defense. Doty should still have been prosecuted and a jury can decide if it's self defense or not. Which it isn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, all the tabloid journalism isn't helping your case much.

And what are you claiming, exactly? That homeless people should be denied to defend themselves in court when a crime has been alleged? The office investigated and concluded that Carmignani had incited the incident, and you have no reason to disagree with them except that the Post and the Daily Mail are telling you a very dramatic story about the events, while nearly admitting that they themselves previously lied about another case in the very same city, the Bob Lee murder, not months ago. The very first sentence of the article in your post is a small lie, in fact. While the prosecutors (not the DA, who has nothing to do with this) have notified their client that they intend to drop charges lest he himself end up incriminating himself in court, they have not actually dropped the charges yet, though they almost certainly will. Carmignani came very close to incriminating himself just in a media interview today:

"I didn't go out there to fight anyone. I'm trying to get them down the road, go to the park," said Carmignani. "It's three-on-one."

Which is not the way you would describe just walking down the street and minding your own business, is it? He more or less admitted to starting something, and that's when he knew he was talking to a news reporter. Imagine what cross-examination of witnesses might uncover. Apparently he's not only done this before, but done it at least eight times. A fact you would have us believe is completely made up, I suppose? Eight incidents, all phony?

The prosecutors dropped the case because the person they would be effectively put in the awkward position of prosecuting had a solid case for self-defense and they didn't want to risk it. In my opinion, people who violently assault homeless people without cause are not worth feeling bad for if the chickens come home to roost. What did he think was going to happen, the city was going to cheer him on for playing Batman and beating on the homeless? These vigilante attacks on the homeless are becoming more and more common in the City, and they are disgusting.

The problem here is that even if he did provoke it (and I think he did) that doesn't justify the overreaction in self defense. Both sides are guilty.

 

[Politesse]

Yeah, all the tabloid journalism isn't helping your case much.

And what are you claiming, exactly? That homeless people should be denied to defend themselves in court when a crime has been alleged? The office investigated and concluded that Carmignani had incited the incident, and you have no reason to disagree with them except that the Post and the Daily Mail are telling you a very dramatic story about the events, while nearly admitting that they themselves previously lied about another case in the very same city, the Bob Lee murder, not months ago. The very first sentence of the article in your post is a small lie, in fact. While the prosecutors (not the DA, who has nothing to do with this) have notified their client that they intend to drop charges lest he himself end up incriminating himself in court, they have not actually dropped the charges yet, though they almost certainly will. Carmignani came very close to incriminating himself just in a media interview today:

"I didn't go out there to fight anyone. I'm trying to get them down the road, go to the park," said Carmignani. "It's three-on-one."

Which is not the way you would describe just walking down the street and minding your own business, is it? He more or less admitted to starting something, and that's when he knew he was talking to a news reporter. Imagine what cross-examination of witnesses might uncover. Apparently he's not only done this before, but done it at least eight times. A fact you would have us believe is completely made up, I suppose? Eight incidents, all phony?

The prosecutors dropped the case because the person they would be effectively put in the awkward position of prosecuting had a solid case for self-defense and they didn't want to risk it. In my opinion, people who violently assault homeless people without cause are not worth feeling bad for if the chickens come home to roost. What did he think was going to happen, the city was going to cheer him on for playing Batman and beating on the homeless? These vigilante attacks on the homeless are becoming more and more common in the City, and they are disgusting.

The problem here is that even if he did provoke it (and I think he did) that doesn't justify the overreaction in self defense. Both sides are guilty.

I think I can agree with that. But think about this would-be court case from the prosecution's point of view. Because the alleged victim initially lied about the circumstances, almost anything he says is going to be expanding his own liability for a future counter claim. And no judge or jury is going to be especially sympathetic to a guy who was (arguably) committing a hate crime at the time of his assault, and since the accused is a presumably penniless homeless guy, latitude for a settlement or deal of any kind seems slim. Would you want to take the case?

Perhaps you would, perhaps not. But either way, the way the tabloids tried to portray both of these cases as random assaults on innocent people by amoral murder hobos was fundamentally dishonest. And dangerous, as people will remember a lurid headline for far longer than the facts of the case. Both of these situations will be thrown out as evidence that the average SF citizen is in terrible danger of random attacks for years to come, and that does zip to combat the actual sources of crime and violence in the city, which are not explained by the mere presence of a despised minority nor any other simplistic single cause.

 

[TSwizzle]

Los Angeles mayor Blass has her work cut out;

A Los Angeles police officer allegedly had his finger bit off by a man believed to be homeless. The Los Angeles Police Department officer was patrolling the Metro Red Line at Santa Monica Boulevard and Vermont Avenue in East Hollywood Thursday around 10:15 a.m. when a man aboard the train allegedly had drug paraphernalia on him. The LAPD officers approached the man and escorted him off the train. As the suspect was getting kicked out of the train, the suspect started getting violent, trying to fight off the LAPD officers. The suspect allegedly bit a Sergeant responding to the scene.

FoxLA

Public transport in Los Angeles is a nightmare. The “homeless” are constantly on the trains taking drugs, using the carriage as a toilet and harassing passengers.

 

[bilby]

The “homeless”

What, you think the problem is people who have homes, but are pretending not to?

 

[Politesse]

No, he thinks the homeless are pretending to be unable to work and pay rent, preferring a coddled life on the street funded by his taxes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No, he thinks the homeless are pretending to be unable to work and pay rent, preferring a coddled life on the street funded by his taxes.

Yes, because homeless people have all the best perks. Just like how disabled people get all the best parking spots. Man, I bet most people just wish they had it that good.

 

[TSwizzle]

No, he thinks the homeless are pretending to be unable to work and pay rent, preferring a coddled life on the street funded by his taxes.

Yes, because homeless people have all the best perks. Just like how disabled people get all the best parking spots. Man, I bet most people just wish they had it that good.

Looks like more people are getting their wish granted.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yeah, all the tabloid journalism isn't helping your case much.

And what are you claiming, exactly? That homeless people should be denied to defend themselves in court when a crime has been alleged? The office investigated and concluded that Carmignani had incited the incident, and you have no reason to disagree with them except that the Post and the Daily Mail are telling you a very dramatic story about the events, while nearly admitting that they themselves previously lied about another case in the very same city, the Bob Lee murder, not months ago. The very first sentence of the article in your post is a small lie, in fact. While the prosecutors (not the DA, who has nothing to do with this) have notified their client that they intend to drop charges lest he himself end up incriminating himself in court, they have not actually dropped the charges yet, though they almost certainly will. Carmignani came very close to incriminating himself just in a media interview today:

"I didn't go out there to fight anyone. I'm trying to get them down the road, go to the park," said Carmignani. "It's three-on-one."

Which is not the way you would describe just walking down the street and minding your own business, is it? He more or less admitted to starting something, and that's when he knew he was talking to a news reporter. Imagine what cross-examination of witnesses might uncover. Apparently he's not only done this before, but done it at least eight times. A fact you would have us believe is completely made up, I suppose? Eight incidents, all phony?

The prosecutors dropped the case because the person they would be effectively put in the awkward position of prosecuting had a solid case for self-defense and they didn't want to risk it. In my opinion, people who violently assault homeless people without cause are not worth feeling bad for if the chickens come home to roost. What did he think was going to happen, the city was going to cheer him on for playing Batman and beating on the homeless? These vigilante attacks on the homeless are becoming more and more common in the City, and they are disgusting.

The problem here is that even if he did provoke it (and I think he did) that doesn't justify the overreaction in self defense. Both sides are guilty.

I think I can agree with that. But think about this would-be court case from the prosecution's point of view. Because the alleged victim initially lied about the circumstances, almost anything he says is going to be expanding his own liability for a future counter claim. And no judge or jury is going to be especially sympathetic to a guy who was (arguably) committing a hate crime at the time of his assault, and since the accused is a presumably penniless homeless guy, latitude for a settlement or deal of any kind seems slim. Would you want to take the case?

Perhaps you would, perhaps not. But either way, the way the tabloids tried to portray both of these cases as random assaults on innocent people by amoral murder hobos was fundamentally dishonest. And dangerous, as people will remember a lurid headline for far longer than the facts of the case. Both of these situations will be thrown out as evidence that the average SF citizen is in terrible danger of random attacks for years to come, and that does zip to combat the actual sources of crime and violence in the city, which are not explained by the mere presence of a despised minority nor any other simplistic single cause.

So it turns out that Carmignani is serially assaulting with bear spray the homelees people in his neighborhood. Breakdown in civil order? Sure...

 

[Politesse]

Yeah, all the tabloid journalism isn't helping your case much.

And what are you claiming, exactly? That homeless people should be denied to defend themselves in court when a crime has been alleged? The office investigated and concluded that Carmignani had incited the incident, and you have no reason to disagree with them except that the Post and the Daily Mail are telling you a very dramatic story about the events, while nearly admitting that they themselves previously lied about another case in the very same city, the Bob Lee murder, not months ago. The very first sentence of the article in your post is a small lie, in fact. While the prosecutors (not the DA, who has nothing to do with this) have notified their client that they intend to drop charges lest he himself end up incriminating himself in court, they have not actually dropped the charges yet, though they almost certainly will. Carmignani came very close to incriminating himself just in a media interview today:

"I didn't go out there to fight anyone. I'm trying to get them down the road, go to the park," said Carmignani. "It's three-on-one."

Which is not the way you would describe just walking down the street and minding your own business, is it? He more or less admitted to starting something, and that's when he knew he was talking to a news reporter. Imagine what cross-examination of witnesses might uncover. Apparently he's not only done this before, but done it at least eight times. A fact you would have us believe is completely made up, I suppose? Eight incidents, all phony?

The prosecutors dropped the case because the person they would be effectively put in the awkward position of prosecuting had a solid case for self-defense and they didn't want to risk it. In my opinion, people who violently assault homeless people without cause are not worth feeling bad for if the chickens come home to roost. What did he think was going to happen, the city was going to cheer him on for playing Batman and beating on the homeless? These vigilante attacks on the homeless are becoming more and more common in the City, and they are disgusting.

The problem here is that even if he did provoke it (and I think he did) that doesn't justify the overreaction in self defense. Both sides are guilty.

I think I can agree with that. But think about this would-be court case from the prosecution's point of view. Because the alleged victim initially lied about the circumstances, almost anything he says is going to be expanding his own liability for a future counter claim. And no judge or jury is going to be especially sympathetic to a guy who was (arguably) committing a hate crime at the time of his assault, and since the accused is a presumably penniless homeless guy, latitude for a settlement or deal of any kind seems slim. Would you want to take the case?

Perhaps you would, perhaps not. But either way, the way the tabloids tried to portray both of these cases as random assaults on innocent people by amoral murder hobos was fundamentally dishonest. And dangerous, as people will remember a lurid headline for far longer than the facts of the case. Both of these situations will be thrown out as evidence that the average SF citizen is in terrible danger of random attacks for years to come, and that does zip to combat the actual sources of crime and violence in the city, which are not explained by the mere presence of a despised minority nor any other simplistic single cause.

So it turns out that Carmignani is serially assaulting with bear spray the homelees people in his neighborhood. Breakdown in civil order? Sure...

Well, that's definitely a breakdown in civil order.

What's weird is, who the "I'm really a liberal just not woke" crowd think is doing the most serious breaking of the order.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think I can agree with that. But think about this would-be court case from the prosecution's point of view. Because the alleged victim initially lied about the circumstances, almost anything he says is going to be expanding his own liability for a future counter claim. And no judge or jury is going to be especially sympathetic to a guy who was (arguably) committing a hate crime at the time of his assault, and since the accused is a presumably penniless homeless guy, latitude for a settlement or deal of any kind seems slim. Would you want to take the case?

Perhaps you would, perhaps not. But either way, the way the tabloids tried to portray both of these cases as random assaults on innocent people by amoral murder hobos was fundamentally dishonest. And dangerous, as people will remember a lurid headline for far longer than the facts of the case. Both of these situations will be thrown out as evidence that the average SF citizen is in terrible danger of random attacks for years to come, and that does zip to combat the actual sources of crime and violence in the city, which are not explained by the mere presence of a despised minority nor any other simplistic single cause.

Good point about testifying. He can't testify without implicating himself--he's almost certainly better off dropping the matter.