steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.
Hooray for the Second Amendment.Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.
How many of these shootings were by lawful gun owners?Hooray for the Second Amendment.Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.
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.
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?Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.
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.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?Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.
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.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.
We will see. Right now, they have been released, in most cases without bail.Which is why organized theft is considered a felony, and anyone caught involved in it goes to jail.
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.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 do not find it distasteful. After all, a defining characteristic of metaphors and all figurative language is that it is not literal.I was aware of the metaphor and its routine use on the right, I just find it a distasteful one.
Quite the contrary. Humans are animals.Criminals are human beings, not animals. And people who have not been charged with a crime aren't either.
So your contention is that all finite periods of confinement are equivalent?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,
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.especially without charging them with a crime,
If Governor Moonbeam and other governors hadn't stopped construction of new prisons they would not be so overrun.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.
Of course major crimes should be prioritized. That does not mean less major ones (stealing cars is not a minor crime!) should be ignored.The position of the state is that given our limited resources, state prosecutors should prioritize major crimes over minor misdemeanors.
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?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.
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.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.
The rest of the country has not been closing state prisons thus shifting felony cases to county jails and releasing county inmates en masse.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.
That may be true, but then again, Democrats are miseducated as a rule. As your former governor said:Republicans are under-educated as a rule,
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.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.
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.So people with severe mental illnesses should sleep on the ground, since we have concluded that that is a cure for mental illness.
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'
So you think we should all eat puppies and kittens?Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.
So you don't think robbers should go to jail/prison?
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!
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?Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.
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.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.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.
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 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.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.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.
However, I am glad you do not really mean that.
I meant context you wrote it in. I did not know you were quoting somebody playing the 88-string guitar or something.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.
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.