Breakdown In Civil Order

[Derec]

12 Major US cities shatter their homicide records;
Just a coincidence I'm sure;

Of course. Far from me to suggest it may have anything whatsoever to do with fauxgressive mayors and DAs (like Garcon in LA or Krasner in Phily) in those cities.

 

[Derec]

Participants in racial justice protests against police violence last summer in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Rochester and other cities told media outlets that their exposure to teargas had been followed by unexpected bleeding, unusually painful cramps, and other disruptions of their typical menstrual cycles.

"Racial justice protests" my ass. These were radical anti-police riots that led to looting, vandalism and arson of businesses and government buildings.

The new research, based on an online survey of more than 2,200 people, challenges claims that the health consequences of being teargassed are minor and temporary, said Dr Britta Torgrimson-Ojerio, a researcher at Kaiser Permanente Northwest and the lead author of the study.

So, this "study" relied solely on self-reporting on an online questionnaire. Obviously #BLM and Antifa rioters have a vested interest in exaggerating or even making up negative effects of being tear gassed.

 

[TSwizzle]

Of course. Far from me to suggest it may have anything whatsoever to do with fauxgressive mayors and DAs (like Garcon in LA or Krasner in Phily) in those cities.

The insufferable prick Gavin Newsom is so dumb he said out loud about all the shit happening in California is not down to policies because the same shit is happening in other parts of the country. Yeah dumbass, the same things happen in places with the same policies. He really is as dumb as a rock.

 

[Derec]

Looks like AOC is a retail robbery truther ...
NY Democrat rips AOC's denial of rise in smash-and-grab robberies: 'She's a danger'

 

[lpetrich]

I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.

 

[Derec]

I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.

No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

 

[Politesse]

I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.

No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

A disturbing sentiment. If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being. The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes. The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.

 

[Derec]

A disturbing sentiment.

Only if you take everything so literally you should change your handle to "Amelia Bedelia".

If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being.

It's a commonly used phrase outside of fishing, specifically about lax crime policies.
Example:
Catch-and-release policies create revolving door of crime as pending cases pile up

The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes.

I disagree that organized retail robberies or car thefts are "minor crimes", especially repeat offenses.
And they certainly should not result in just a fine. That said, I never said anything about life imprisonment or worse either.

The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.

Well, they should not be "relased[sic] pretty quickly". Minor shoplifting, yes, I can see a fine for first offense. Retail robbery is another kettle of fish altogether. As is stealing a car. Both of those should result in prison time, especially for repeat offenders.
Now, before trial a judge should impose bail for serious theft/robbery crimes and a judge should be able to remand suspects until trial if they get picked up again. Unlike what is happening in places like CA and NY where criminals commit crimes over and over again and are released every time, often with no bail requirement whatsoever.

 

[Politesse]

A disturbing sentiment.

Only if you take everything so literally you should change your handle to "Amelia Bedelia".

If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being.

It's a commonly used phrase outside of fishing, specifically about lax crime policies.
Example:
Catch-and-release policies create revolving door of crime as pending cases pile up

The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes.

I disagree that organized retail robberies or car thefts are "minor crimes", especially repeat offenses.

Which is why organized theft is considered a felony, and anyone caught involved in it goes to jail. The Republican lies about prop 47 forbidding the police from fighting organized crime are just that: lies. And lies that are especially insulting to the police themselves, who are thus groundlessly accused of inaction.

I was aware of the metaphor and its routine use on the right, I just find it a distasteful one. Criminals are human beings, not animals. And people who have not been charged with a crime aren't either.

 

[Jarhyn]

A disturbing sentiment.

Only if you take everything so literally you should change your handle to "Amelia Bedelia".

If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being.

It's a commonly used phrase outside of fishing, specifically about lax crime policies.
Example:
Catch-and-release policies create revolving door of crime as pending cases pile up

The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes.

I disagree that organized retail robberies or car thefts are "minor crimes", especially repeat offenses.

Which is why organized theft is considered a felony, and anyone caught involved in it goes to jail. The Republican lies about prop 47 forbidding the police from fighting organized crime are just that: lies. And lies that are especially insulting to the police themselves, who are thus groundlessly accused of inaction.

I was aware of the metaphor and its routine use on the right, I just find it a distasteful one. Criminals are human beings, not animals. And people who have not been charged with a crime aren't either.

I would pose more that human beings are clearly capable of being compatible with the idea of society and so we each have both the expectations of responsibility and the benefit of the doubt as regards treatment that any given "human" is capable of being a "person".

I would note several "animals" that are a sight closer to personhood though than a fair number of "humans", and I think both deserve the consideration of quarter their behavior allows.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.

No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

A disturbing sentiment. If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being. The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes. The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.

I don't see that he's saying they never should be released, but there seems to be no punishment for shoplifting.

 

[Emily Lake]

The point was prisons and the other costs of failing to address homelessness is probably substantially more of a fiscal drain than it would be to address those problems. I realize that American prisons are not up to the standards of Norway's "comfy prison" model, but even with that, the cost of keeping those people incarcerated and of paying for their healthcare costs is ludicrous. Furthermore, the cost of paying for their emergency room visits whenever they get sick or injured due to the hazards that are related to homelessness is ludicrous.

The UCLA study that I provided a few posts back was actually very interesting. I think there is a very strong economic case for simply providing shelter for the homeless. Several models for it already exist.

As a person that has been through intermittent homelessness around the time of the recession, I can tell you that being homeless does not make you want to work. It makes you want to be dead. It makes you want to lie down and give up. It puts you into vicious cycles of self-defeating behavior. The idea that making people sleep outside is going to make them more moral is outright unhinged. It just doesn't work that way.

I think one of the complications here is that solutions that are good for intermittent homelessness aren't necessarily good for long-term homelessness. They have different underlying causes.

Someone homeless due to job loss, temporary housing loss, fleeing an abusive relationship, etc. is in a very different situation from those who are long-term homeless due to severe mental illness or drug addiction. They need different solutions. Providing short-term housing and support for intermittent homelessness is a good idea... but I think it also produce a risk if that housing is also provided for long-term homelessness.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is getting worse in Seattle every week.

I was at a bus stop in downtown Seattle. There was a walk in tent on the sidewalk. People walking up making transactions at te door.

From a local report roughly 1/3 of homeless camps are mental ilnness and drug addiction, 1/3 people gaming the system, and 1/3 a front for crime.

We all know it, yet there is no strong response.

It took over a year to begin to clear a camp on a school property. Meddles, kids being threatened.

Multiple shootings within a few miles of where I live.

Auto theft by stata law is now treated as a misdemeanor not a felony. Auto tefts rise. Drugs have been decriminalized while drug problems increase.

Stores being robbed by smash and grab gangs multiple times.

Our city and county govt refuse to acknowledge the connection to policy.

I don't miss the Seattle area. It was already developing problems when I left, but it just seems to keep getting worse. Most of the west coast seems to be having very similar problems.

What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

 

[Politesse]

I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.

No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

A disturbing sentiment. If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being. The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes. The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.

I don't see that he's saying they never should be released, but there seems to be no punishment for shoplifting.

Which is why I said "I presume that isn't what you meant", rather optimistically. But his point makes no sense unless that is what he means, as "detain for a while, then release eventually" is the current status quo, the only disagreement is how long to hold someone, especially without charging them with a crime, perhaps prosecuting them through a public court process in which both sides of the legal exchange are likely funded by the state, and jailing them, again at great expense to taxpayers and an already-overrun state prison system. The position of the state is that given our limited resources, state prosecutors should prioritize major crimes over minor misdemeanors. Shoplifting is still illegal, and in every single case that has been brought for our consideration in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have either already been arrested or are actively being pursued. Mall security just isn't the priority of the police in the field. And cannot be, practically speaking. Not in conservative states either, they just have to pretend to be brutal on petty criminals in order to impress their base. Ultimately, they don't arrest everyone accused of minor crimes either, they don't have any more room in their prisons than the rest of the country, nor the money to fund a mass jailing and extended legal process for every citizen who has ever been accused of shoplifting.

Republicans are under-educated as a rule, and though in theory they oppose taxation, they also seem to think that money, time, and the patience of the citizenry will grow on trees, as long as they're being spent in the cause of doing nasty things to those nasty people they've been taught to hate.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

The point was prisons and the other costs of failing to address homelessness is probably substantially more of a fiscal drain than it would be to address those problems. I realize that American prisons are not up to the standards of Norway's "comfy prison" model, but even with that, the cost of keeping those people incarcerated and of paying for their healthcare costs is ludicrous. Furthermore, the cost of paying for their emergency room visits whenever they get sick or injured due to the hazards that are related to homelessness is ludicrous.

The UCLA study that I provided a few posts back was actually very interesting. I think there is a very strong economic case for simply providing shelter for the homeless. Several models for it already exist.

As a person that has been through intermittent homelessness around the time of the recession, I can tell you that being homeless does not make you want to work. It makes you want to be dead. It makes you want to lie down and give up. It puts you into vicious cycles of self-defeating behavior. The idea that making people sleep outside is going to make them more moral is outright unhinged. It just doesn't work that way.

I think one of the complications here is that solutions that are good for intermittent homelessness aren't necessarily good for long-term homelessness. They have different underlying causes.

Someone homeless due to job loss, temporary housing loss, fleeing an abusive relationship, etc. is in a very different situation from those who are long-term homeless due to severe mental illness or drug addiction. They need different solutions. Providing short-term housing and support for intermittent homelessness is a good idea... but I think it also produce a risk if that housing is also provided for long-term homelessness.

So people with severe mental illnesses should sleep on the ground, since we have concluded that that is a cure for mental illness. That is apparently what Americans think, and who am I to argue? After all, I am just a miniature dragon. I am of no consequence.

My opinion is that we should not even allow people to sleep out in the elements. It is very bad for their mental health, and if their mental health becomes damaged, then they are a liability to everybody else. Damaged people are a liability. I have a feeling that the Christians would get mad if we started euthanizing them, but we should either euthanize them or provide them with shelter so that their minds will not go completely weird.

I have been without adequate nutrition and shelter before, and I'll tell you what it did to me: it took me from being merely weird to being seriously not well, mentally. I was having florid hallucinations at night, and I was having seizures, at one point. Believe me, it did not cure me of anything. If somebody had not rescued me, then I would have either seriously hurt somebody or gotten seriously hurt.

If somebody seriously just does not give a shit about the homeless, then they should just drop pretenses and call for the homeless to be euthanized. Let's eat them, too. We'll make them into a new health food. We'll call it Soylent Green.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think one of the complications here is that solutions that are good for intermittent homelessness aren't necessarily good for long-term homelessness. They have different underlying causes.

Someone homeless due to job loss, temporary housing loss, fleeing an abusive relationship, etc. is in a very different situation from those who are long-term homeless due to severe mental illness or drug addiction. They need different solutions. Providing short-term housing and support for intermittent homelessness is a good idea... but I think it also produce a risk if that housing is also provided for long-term homelessness.

I partially agree. Low earning potential in a high cost city could be a long term problem.

I do agree that there are two very different issues that can't be handled with a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[Trausti]

What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

Cynicism may be appropriate. In Seattle, homelessness is blamed on big business and rents - not mental illness and drug addiction. Obviously, a person with severe mental illness or drug addiction can not hold down a job, let alone pay rent. But it’s politically incorrect to notice that. Instead, the homeless are used as a means to increase spending; e.g., direct public funds to special interests. Plans to open injection sites are not companionate but callous.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

Cynicism may be appropriate. In Seattle, homelessness is blamed on big business and rents - not mental illness and drug addiction. Obviously, a person with severe mental illness or drug addiction can not hold down a job, let alone pay rent. But it’s politically incorrect to notice that. Instead, the homeless are used as a means to increase spending; e.g., direct public funds to special interests. Plans to open injection sites are not companionate but callous.

Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.

Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years [PYs]), 67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections. Effects on hospitalizations are unknown.

Does evidence support supervised injection sites?

Do supervised injection sites (SISs) reduce mortality, hospitalizations, ambulance calls, or disease transmission? Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years [PYs]), 67% fewer

www.cfp.ca

And when I say "cheap," I mean it costs less to society than not having them:

With very conservative estimates, it is predicted that the addition of each supervised injection facility (up-to a maximum of three) in Montreal will on average prevent 11 cases of HIV and 65 cases of HCV each year. As a result, there is a net cost saving of CDN$0.686 million (HIV) and CDN$0.8 million (HCV) for each additional supervised injection site each year. This translates into a net average benefit-cost ratio of 1.21: 1 for both HIV and HCV.

A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed supervised injection facilities in Montreal, Canada - Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Background This paper will determine whether expanding Insite (North America’s first and only supervised injection facility) to more locations in Canada such as Montreal, cost less than the health care consequences of not having such expanded programs for injection drug users. Methods By...

substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com

The cost-benefit analysis strikes again.

It might be even cheaper to just deal with the homeless by having them shot, but that would make the Christians mad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So people with severe mental illnesses should sleep on the ground, since we have concluded that that is a cure for mental illness. That is apparently what Americans think, and who am I to argue? After all, I am just a miniature dragon. I am of no consequence.

It's not that, it's that we don't have a better answer. Providing accommodation just results in destroyed accommodation.

My opinion is that we should not even allow people to sleep out in the elements. It is very bad for their mental health, and if their mental health becomes damaged, then they are a liability to everybody else. Damaged people are a liability. I have a feeling that the Christians would get mad if we started euthanizing them, but we should either euthanize them or provide them with shelter so that their minds will not go completely weird.

And how does it harm one's mental health? Camping is something people do!

I have been without adequate nutrition and shelter before, and I'll tell you what it did to me: it took me from being merely weird to being seriously not well, mentally. I was having florid hallucinations at night, and I was having seizures, at one point. Believe me, it did not cure me of anything. If somebody had not rescued me, then I would have either seriously hurt somebody or gotten seriously hurt.

Yes, nutrition is a problem.

If somebody seriously just does not give a shit about the homeless, then they should just drop pretenses and call for the homeless to be euthanized. Let's eat them, too. We'll make them into a new health food. We'll call it Soylent Green.

It's not a matter of not giving a shit, it's a matter of not having good solutions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

Cynicism may be appropriate. In Seattle, homelessness is blamed on big business and rents - not mental illness and drug addiction. Obviously, a person with severe mental illness or drug addiction can not hold down a job, let alone pay rent. But it’s politically incorrect to notice that. Instead, the homeless are used as a means to increase spending; e.g., direct public funds to special interests. Plans to open injection sites are not companionate but callous.

Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.

Yup, they reduce lots of drug-related problems.