Breakdown In Civil Order

[steve_bank]

Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.

 

[bilby]

Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.

Hooray for the Second Amendment.

Seriously, you need to choose between routine shootings and repealing that stupidity in your constitution.

Whinging about it and falsely attributing it to some kind of breakdown in civil order is just blatantly deliberate ignorance.

 

[steve_bank]

Watched a 90s show o English injection sites. Crime decreased around the sites.

If you were a registered addict you could get a daily maintenance dose.

What is not being discussed much i media is a reltion between decriminalizg drugs and a rise in drug use. Drugs were popularized in music and movies. Remeber Cheech and Chong?


Peoplke are suing drug campanies and even pharmacists who fill legal oresriptins.

You can not avoid culture irself. TV is flodded for ads on drugs for just about anything.

One commercial ran through a lengthy list of symnpoms telling yiu to ask yiur doctor about their drug if you had any of the syntoms.

Then there is te ridiculous supplements adverting.

The drug problem is economics and culture.

The profit motive. The idea behind decriminalizing pot was to get organized crime out of it and let people grow their own. Seeing potential for taxes states now regulate sales for tax revenues.

The image used to be of people hnaging out on the street drinking chap wine from paper bag, whinos. Now it is pot. You smell it everywhere in downtown Seattle. People sitting or laying on the sidewalk smoking pot. With decriminalization people openly shoot up in public, I see it. We have peole passed out in our dorrway and those who OD.

 

[Trausti]

Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.

Hooray for the Second Amendment.

Seriously, you need to choose between routine shootings and repealing that stupidity in your constitution.

Whinging about it and falsely attributing it to some kind of breakdown in civil order is just blatantly deliberate ignorance.

How many of these shootings were by lawful gun owners?

 

[Trausti]

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

Aiding addiction is not caring, it is abuse. You may reduce mortality at the site because of the availability of Narcan, but you are continuing the person's drug addition which will surely end in death. This drug addicted person has little chance of returning to society. That should be the metric - are we helping people get clean and be functioning members of society?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

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

Aiding addiction is not caring, it is abuse. You may reduce mortality at the site because of the availability of Narcan, but you are continuing the person's drug addition which will surely end in death. This drug addicted person has little chance of returning to society. That should be the metric - are we helping people get clean and be functioning members of society?

Well, my main problem with what you are saying, here, is that it's a load of horse shit. The fact that you casually waved away the evidence I showed you, above, is not lost on me. I will present you with more, though.

Current literature suggests that supervised injection sites do nothing whatsoever, in aggregate, to increase how often people use the drugs in question. Instead, people that come to the supervised injection sites just have increased access to primary care, and they are less likely to die from an overdose.

Results: Seventy-five relevant articles were found. All studies converged to find that SISs were efficacious
in attracting the most marginalized PWID, promoting safer injection conditions, enhancing access to
primary health care, and reducing the overdose frequency. SISs were not found to increase drug injecting,
drug trafficking or crime in the surrounding environments. SISs were found to be associated with reduced
levels of public drug injections and dropped syringes. Of the articles, 85% originated from Vancouver or
Sydney.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46619406/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.012

Based on the current evidence, SIS are just a more cost-effective use of public resources.

It would be even more cost-effective to simply have heroin addicts casually shot and shoved into gutters, but this would make the Christians mad. They do not like it when you deal with people by murdering them. I am not a Christian, myself, but I am a little bit tenderhearted: therefore, you would not have much better luck getting that to fly with me, either.

The SIS have been working quite brilliantly.

 

[Derec]

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.

So you don't think robbers should go to jail/prison?

 

[Derec]

Which is why organized theft is considered a felony, and anyone caught involved in it goes to jail.

We will see. Right now, they have been released, in most cases without bail.

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.

It's not usually the police that are inactive, it's the DAs. The fauxgressive DAs take the reclassification of theft below $900 as a misdemeanor as carte blanche to nolle prosequi many cases of shoplifting or other theft crimes.

I was aware of the metaphor and its routine use on the right, I just find it a distasteful one.

I do not find it distasteful. After all, a defining characteristic of metaphors and all figurative language is that it is not literal.

Criminals are human beings, not animals. And people who have not been charged with a crime aren't either.

Quite the contrary. Humans are animals.

 

[Derec]

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,

So your contention is that all finite periods of confinement are equivalent?

especially without charging them with a crime,

Nobody here, least of all me, advocates holding people for an extended time without them charged with a crime. The disagreement is under which circumstances people should be released after being charged but before trial. I think somebody who violates the terms of the bond, by for example stealing another car while out, should be held until trial unless there are some significant extenuating circumstances.

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.

If Governor Moonbeam and other governors hadn't stopped construction of new prisons they would not be so overrun.
Also, why not repeal nonsensical laws and focus law enforcement on real crimes. California is still arresting sex workers and their customers. Stop that, but imprison thieves and robbers.

The position of the state is that given our limited resources, state prosecutors should prioritize major crimes over minor misdemeanors.

Of course major crimes should be prioritized. That does not mean less major ones (stealing cars is not a minor crime!) should be ignored.
And what is this malarkey about "limited resources"? State legislature and governors could have adequately funded courts and prisons. It is a political choice not to do so.

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.

Well the cases brought up here have been especially brazen cases, so that is hardly surprising. But what of 1000s of cases of regular shoplifting that are ignored by the likes of DA Chesa?

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.

Do you have data on clearance rates of retail theft by state? I know Walgreens are not closing around here because of unchecked shoplifting. They are in San Francisco.

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.

The rest of the country has not been closing state prisons thus shifting felony cases to county jails and releasing county inmates en masse.

Republicans are under-educated as a rule,

That may be true, but then again, Democrats are miseducated as a rule. As your former governor said:

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.

Well, I am not a Republican, and I do not oppose taxation. And I do not think money grows on trees, but AOC certainly does.
In any case, it's not about hate, it's about the fact that property crimes have real victims. When somebody's car is stolen, they are really harmed. If a store closes because there is too much theft, real people lose a place of work and a place to shop in their neighborhoods.

Again, reduce the number of crimes on the books, and then really enforce what's left.

 

[Derec]

[removed for consistency]
14 arrested for LA smash-and-grab robberies all released on zero-bail policies

 

[Derec]

So people with severe mental illnesses should sleep on the ground, since we have concluded that that is a cure for mental illness.

That's not what Emily said. She said that policies should be different because the two problems - homelessness due to economic hardship and homelessness due to severe mental illness are qualitatively different and thus require different solutions. The latter group needs more - not less - intervention. In many cases including being institutionalized, at least for a time.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Organizations that help the homeless provide a variety of resources tailored to the needs of their clients. They help people stand on their own two feet as well as the individual can. Those who cannot should be provided for by the rest of us.

Many corporations and charitable trusts provide funding for these organizations. It’s not just your tax dollars. What the financial breakout is, I do knot no.

I don’t know where the notion that the homeless will destroy the housing they are provided stems from; isolated incidences or assumption. It seems to me that an individual would have to be suffering from a rather severe form of mental illness, to intentionally destroy what is sheltering them from the elements.

 

[thebeave]

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'

I wonder if AOC thinks she has Jedi mind trick powers, and if she just says something and subtley waves her fingers, people will believe her and repeat her nonsense:




And now we have Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot putting blame on the retailers who aren't doing enough to beef up security of their stores:




C'mon retailers! Get with the program! Spend more of your own money (what's left after the thefts) to fix the problem that we government officials created!

 

[bilby]

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.

So you don't think robbers should go to jail/prison?

So you think we should all eat puppies and kittens?

Oh, sorry, I thought I had stumbled into the non-sequiturs and strawmen forum by mistake.

No, I do not think that. And nothing I have said implies that I do. Unless, of course, you take it from its context and deliberately ignore its obvious meaning for rhetorical effect, which would be dishonest and stupid.

 

[TSwizzle]

And now we have Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot putting blame on the retailers who aren't doing enough to beef up security of their stores:




C'mon retailers! Get with the program! Spend more of your own money (what's left after the thefts) to fix the problem that we government officials created!

She should also tell women to stop wearing short skirts so they don’t get raped.

We live in an age where reason is in retreat. Replaced with the fantasies of the ignorant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Aiding addiction is not caring, it is abuse. You may reduce mortality at the site because of the availability of Narcan, but you are continuing the person's drug addition which will surely end in death. This drug addicted person has little chance of returning to society. That should be the metric - are we helping people get clean and be functioning members of society?

The problem is we don't have effective means of getting people clean and we don't have enough of what we do have.

 

[Derec]

No, I do not think that. And nothing I have said implies that I do. Unless, of course, you take it from its context and deliberately ignore its obvious meaning for rhetorical effect, which would be dishonest and stupid.

I think the following, written in the context of people forfeiting their freedom because they have committed crimes such as robbery or grand theft, does imply that.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.

However, I am glad you do not really mean that.

 

[bilby]

No, I do not think that. And nothing I have said implies that I do. Unless, of course, you take it from its context and deliberately ignore its obvious meaning for rhetorical effect, which would be dishonest and stupid.

I think the following, written in the context of people forfeiting their freedom because they have committed crimes such as robbery or grand theft, does imply that.

Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.

However, I am glad you do not really mean that.

It was written in the context of the 1989 Vancouver Folk Festival, as part of a reworking in English of a French political anthem from a century earlier.

 

[Derec]

It was written in the context of the 1989 Vancouver Folk Festival, as part of a reworking in English of a French political anthem from a century earlier.

I meant context you wrote it in. I did not know you were quoting somebody playing the 88-string guitar or something.

 

[Gospel]

We need to remove nonsensical crimes from law books (marijuana, sex work being prime examples) but then really go after real crimes like thefts, robberies, assaults, murders etc.

Where do I sign?