Defunding the Police?

[Testy Calibrate]

Anarchy is the ultimate in less government, so I thought that you wanted that.

You have this tendency of straw-manning rightwing arguments. It really does no favors to the positions you are a proponent of.

more of a reductio ad absurdum

 

[Testy Calibrate]

There are plenty of examples of what conservatives are doing wrong, just as there are plenty of examples of what faux-liberals are doing wrong. Dysfunctions in major cities are almost universally examples of what "libs" are doing wrong.


Before you can even start to make things better, one would have to stop digging. Electing Chesa Boudin, who is so soft on crime he is a fluid, as DA is not stopping digging, it's getting a backhoe!

It would, for instance, take care of SF's downtown poop problem overnight if businesses were simply required by law to open up their restrooms for public use, or contrarily if public bathrooms were more frequent and well-maintained.

I don't think businesses should be required to open their restrooms to non-customers. Especially since the homeless are also frequently drug users and may use the bathrooms to shoot up.
Public restrooms may be a solution, but again, it's difficult to keep them well-maintained and well-cleaned if bums can use them freely.

First thing that needs to be considered is why are there so many urban outdoorsmen in SF?

It's probably due to overly permissive attitude by the city government.

Given that almost all the problem areas are also major tourist spots, either measure would instantly pay for itself in recovered commercial and tax revenue.

I doubt tourists want to see people shoot up in the bathroom of their Fisherman's Wharf restaurant.

Public housing projects, rent control problems, and eviction stays would also help, since less people would be homeless in the first place, and people who own toilets don't usually go in the bushes.

Public housing would be a solution for those who find themselves homeless temporarily due to some financial setback. The real homeless, those who use a rat as a phone (Atlanta joke, SCNR), tend to often be mentally ill and would not be really helped by that.
I am against rent control in principle as it fucks with landlords who want to make a return on their investment and also need to be able to pay for maintenance/improvements out of the rent revenues. Therefore, it discouraging building of new housing units.

It also leads to unjust situations where some rent controlled apartments go for comically low amounts while a similar apartment next door may go for a multiple of that price.
Why Rent Control Doesn’t Work (Ep. 373)
The one issue every economist can agree is bad: Rent control

If somebody can't afford to live in SF proper because the rent is too damn high, what's wrong with moving to the burbs? It's not a binary choice between living in a house in SF or living in the streets in SF. Bridges work in both directions!

Arresting people for pooping isn't a solution, since that both obliges the government to pay for their toiletries directly for a while on the taxpayer's dime, exactly what you lot are supposedly unwilling to do, and puts them right back where they started once they are released a few weeks later, without having addressed the underlying issue.

If they are mentally ill, it should be easier to commit those people to mental hospitals. It is very difficult to involuntarily commit people these days.

"Well, now that you've had to shit in a metal pipe for a few days, I'm sure you learned your lesson about never shitting in alleys instead. Good luck out there, convicted felon! See you in a few weeks!"

There must be a possibility of a middle ground between "sidewalk pooping is fine, in fact, we welcome all homeless to come to our city to poop on our sidewalks" and "sidewalk pooping is a felony".

The biggest cause of homelessness is lack of homes. The biggest cause of shit on the streets is lack of toilets. Solving these things isn't a logistical problem, it's a political problem. And you aren't helping either.

Neither are SF elected leaders, and they have both the means and the responsibility to do something.

have you ever heard of the concept of a "wicked problem"?

 

[J842P]

Anarchy is the ultimate in less government, so I thought that you wanted that.

You have this tendency of straw-manning rightwing arguments. It really does no favors to the positions you are a proponent of.

more of a reductio ad absurdum

Most reductio ad absurdum arguments, outside of a strict formal logical argument, degenerate into straw men, because most people really have no interest in actually interrogating the nuance of an opponent's position, and rather, prefer to score cheap gotcha points.

 

[skepticalbip]

That looks at least halfway sensible. There is a lot of policing that is just plain unnecessary. Like drug policing.

While I agree that our current drug laws are rather absurd, that is a problem with congress. Congress critters and State Legislators are the ones who enacted the laws. The police are required (by law) to enforce them. The police do not make laws.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I think you did, but maybe you didn't mean to.

When you wrote this:


It was in response to this:

When a city incentives lawlessness and disorder, those who favor law and order - the people who generate the economic activity and wealth - will leave. E.g., the city prosecutor will not prosecute minor theft. The result is a downtown drug store closed because it was subjected to daily shoplifting.

Trausti mentioned how a prosecutor will no longer prosecute shoplifters, and you replied with a claim that going after shoplifters is tantamount to a "police state".

If you misspoke, please clarify.

though I do think making shoplifting a focus of police efforts would be an absurd waste of resources. A losing battle with few real casualties.

Nobody said it should be a focus, but when you arrest thieves, they should be prosecuted. Otherwise you send a message that it's ok to steal.

I've worked in retail myself, and know perfectly well how much shrink occurs in a large store on any given day. You could put officers at every exit and strip search all the customers on their way out, and it still wouldn't accomplish much.

Not a reason not to prosecute those that do get caught.

Whether someone has said that I don't know, but as a general rule the point of "Defund" campaigns is to encourage the prosecution of serious crimes like those you describe, while pursuing less serious issues like drug use and petty theft by other means. Despite the catchy slogan, it's not really that different from the already existing position of the Democratic party on such issues. Which, I gather, you also disapprove of.

There is a big difference between somebody using some weed and somebody stealing something that isn't theirs. There are good reasons why weed (and sex work for that matter) should be decriminalized. There are zero good reasons to stealing to be decriminalized.

Yes, this has been quite the news story around here. The "deadly weapon" was a glass bottle,

Unlike in movies, where they use prop bottles made of sugar, being smacked with a real glass bottle is very dangerous. Jamaica Hampton should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

and the boy was shot,

First of all, he was 24 at the time, so hardly a "boy". Second of all, the cops were defending themselves from attack.

dismembered, and nearly killed for his alleged crime.

"Dismembered" is needlessly theatrical. His leg was amputated.
And the crime was captured on video. He clearly attacked those cops for no reason.

The disproportionate force used against him resulted in the launch of an inquiry against the officers themselves.

First of all, it was not "disproportionate". St. Jamaica used something classified as a deadly weapon, hence use of lethal force was quite proportionate.
Second, of course the cop-hater Boudin wants to go after the cops or defending themselves and doing their jobs. His own parents murdered cops.

Boudin did suspend the charges in the interest of pursuing one investigation at a time, but has indicated that charges may be refiled depending on what the inquiry finds.

That's a pretty silly excuse. And besides, it's been months now. He dropped the charges in January, for fuck's sake!

It's true that the policeman's union is very upset with him, but then they were pretty pissed about his election to begin with. I'm willing to wait and see what happens with the case before rushing to judgment on it, personally.

Six months since he withdrew charges to focus on his witch hunt against the cops is hardly "rushing to judgment".

I'm gonna make a guess that your utterly imaginary idea of the monolithic left isn't going to fit politesse's actual considered thoughts very well.

In fact I am mildly in awe how delusional your caricature is

 

[Worldtraveller]

That looks at least halfway sensible. There is a lot of policing that is just plain unnecessary. Like drug policing.

While I agree that our current drug laws are rather absurd, that is a problem with congress. Congress critters and State Legislators are the ones who enacted the laws. The police are required (by law) to enforce them. The police do not make laws.

The biggest current problem is that the police are not subject to the laws the (quite arbitrarily) enforce.

 

[Gun Nut]

My suggestion as to how to deal with wrongful police shootings is to fire any police officer that discharges their weapon in the line of duty. Change nothing else except make using deadly force result in forced retirement. Not as a punishment... not to imply there is never a real need to deploy deadly force... but that is just how it will work. So making a career as a cop involves avoiding the use of deadly force... you can use it when deemed appropriate in the same way we measure appropriateness of deadly force today... but if you do, then you have been "used up" as a cop and must find other work. If you want to be a cop and don't want to lose that job, then figure out how to reliably and successfully deescalate. If that is not "fair" then you are not good enough to be a cop.

Statistically, almost 0% of cops shoot and kill someone in the line of duty. The tiny fraction of police that do, mostly retire afterwards due to the trauma of the event. The infinitesimal amount of cops that shoot and remain on duty is a rare thing. Firing a cop after shooting would not change much other than the philosophy and approach cops take in general. Shooting would become a literal "last resort".

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Needs some work but that's not a bad idea in principle. Their head is going to be messed up afterwards regardless of how it manifests and they will be less capable to understand the public good afterwards. But straight up cutting them loose is also too general to be appropriate in all cases. A retraining program and a guarantee to find them a new job seems necessary.

I mean, we are asking them to put themselves in the situation in the first place. And the bootstrap ayn rand theory of society is a terrible way to appreciate service. While a sizable percent of police are nazi sympathizers of one sort or another, it is a historical artifact of organized white supremacist groups intentionally encouraging their members to join the force. The job itself is very difficult and is legit public service. It seems ethically dubious to me to reject the debt that we owe in an ideal circumstance because some of the people are not ideal. If we called some police behavior criminal and had an independent prosecutor system to prosecute, then we could fire the bad ones that get convicted without having to sacrifice the ethical principle of appreciation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My suggestion as to how to deal with wrongful police shootings is to fire any police officer that discharges their weapon in the line of duty. Change nothing else except make using deadly force result in forced retirement. Not as a punishment... not to imply there is never a real need to deploy deadly force... but that is just how it will work. So making a career as a cop involves avoiding the use of deadly force... you can use it when deemed appropriate in the same way we measure appropriateness of deadly force today... but if you do, then you have been "used up" as a cop and must find other work. If you want to be a cop and don't want to lose that job, then figure out how to reliably and successfully deescalate. If that is not "fair" then you are not good enough to be a cop.

Statistically, almost 0% of cops shoot and kill someone in the line of duty. The tiny fraction of police that do, mostly retire afterwards due to the trauma of the event. The infinitesimal amount of cops that shoot and remain on duty is a rare thing. Firing a cop after shooting would not change much other than the philosophy and approach cops take in general. Shooting would become a literal "last resort".

Thus ensuring that cops will almost never fire to save a hostage. Certainly guaranteeing there are no sharpshooters for hostage incidents.

 

[angelo]

What some crime infested cities like NY or San Francisco really need are some inspector Callahan [ Clunk Eastwood] like no nonsense cops for real, brandishing Magnum 44's. It can be done as Mayor, Giuliani cleaned up New York city under his watch to such an extent that taking a stroll in Central Park at night was safe. And left a clean and almost crime free city. Compare NY then to the cesspool it's become now.

 

[ZiprHead]

What some crime infested cities like NY or San Francisco really need are some inspector Callahan [ Clunk Eastwood] like no nonsense cops for real, brandishing Magnum 44's. It can be done as Mayor, Giuliani cleaned up New York city under his watch to such an extent that taking a stroll in Central Park at night was safe. And left a clean and almost crime free city. Compare NY then to the cesspool it's become now.

You do realize stop-and-frisk was criminal activity, right?

 

[Worldtraveller]

My suggestion as to how to deal with wrongful police shootings is to fire any police officer that discharges their weapon in the line of duty. Change nothing else except make using deadly force result in forced retirement. Not as a punishment... not to imply there is never a real need to deploy deadly force... but that is just how it will work. So making a career as a cop involves avoiding the use of deadly force... you can use it when deemed appropriate in the same way we measure appropriateness of deadly force today... but if you do, then you have been "used up" as a cop and must find other work. If you want to be a cop and don't want to lose that job, then figure out how to reliably and successfully deescalate. If that is not "fair" then you are not good enough to be a cop.

Statistically, almost 0% of cops shoot and kill someone in the line of duty. The tiny fraction of police that do, mostly retire afterwards due to the trauma of the event. The infinitesimal amount of cops that shoot and remain on duty is a rare thing. Firing a cop after shooting would not change much other than the philosophy and approach cops take in general. Shooting would become a literal "last resort".

Thus ensuring that cops will almost never fire to save a hostage. Certainly guaranteeing there are no sharpshooters for hostage incidents.

Wow, do you have some weird fantasies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My suggestion as to how to deal with wrongful police shootings is to fire any police officer that discharges their weapon in the line of duty. Change nothing else except make using deadly force result in forced retirement. Not as a punishment... not to imply there is never a real need to deploy deadly force... but that is just how it will work. So making a career as a cop involves avoiding the use of deadly force... you can use it when deemed appropriate in the same way we measure appropriateness of deadly force today... but if you do, then you have been "used up" as a cop and must find other work. If you want to be a cop and don't want to lose that job, then figure out how to reliably and successfully deescalate. If that is not "fair" then you are not good enough to be a cop.

Statistically, almost 0% of cops shoot and kill someone in the line of duty. The tiny fraction of police that do, mostly retire afterwards due to the trauma of the event. The infinitesimal amount of cops that shoot and remain on duty is a rare thing. Firing a cop after shooting would not change much other than the philosophy and approach cops take in general. Shooting would become a literal "last resort".

Thus ensuring that cops will almost never fire to save a hostage. Certainly guaranteeing there are no sharpshooters for hostage incidents.

Wow, do you have some weird fantasies.

Fantasies? I'm simply looking at the reality of his proposal. It would be exceedingly hard on hostages and we would see a lot more hostage-taking because it would be so much more effective.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Wow, do you have some weird fantasies.

Fantasies? I'm simply looking at the reality of his proposal. It would be exceedingly hard on hostages and we would see a lot more hostage-taking because it would be so much more effective.

Hint: the word "would" is not part of the domain of the word "reality " as you've used it.

 

[angelo]

What some crime infested cities like NY or San Francisco really need are some inspector Callahan [ Clunk Eastwood] like no nonsense cops for real, brandishing Magnum 44's. It can be done as Mayor, Giuliani cleaned up New York city under his watch to such an extent that taking a stroll in Central Park at night was safe. And left a clean and almost crime free city. Compare NY then to the cesspool it's become now.

You do realize stop-and-frisk was criminal activity, right?

Sacrificing a little inconvenience for results achieved would be well tolerated by the vast silent majority methinks.

 

[lpetrich]

What some crime infested cities like NY or San Francisco really need are some inspector Callahan [ Clunk Eastwood] like no nonsense cops for real, brandishing Magnum 44's. It can be done as Mayor, Giuliani cleaned up New York city under his watch to such an extent that taking a stroll in Central Park at night was safe. And left a clean and almost crime free city. Compare NY then to the cesspool it's become now.

You do realize stop-and-frisk was criminal activity, right?

Sacrificing a little inconvenience for results achieved would be well tolerated by the vast silent majority methinks.

angelo, would you say that if you yourself were subject to stop-and-frisk? Do you have any better arguments than how one must break eggs to make an omelet?

 

[cycomiko]

What some crime infested cities like NY or San Francisco really need are some inspector Callahan [ Clunk Eastwood] like no nonsense cops for real, brandishing Magnum 44's. It can be done as Mayor, Giuliani cleaned up New York city under his watch to such an extent that taking a stroll in Central Park at night was safe. And left a clean and almost crime free city. Compare NY then to the cesspool it's become now.

You do realize stop-and-frisk was criminal activity, right?

Sacrificing a little inconvenience for results achieved would be well tolerated by the vast silent majority methinks.

here in the US it's not a matter of inconvenience. it's actually illegal as stated in our constitution. that's what Zipr was getting at, i think.

i wish the silent majority would shut the fuck up. the groups that keep claiming that moniker are consistently getting outvoted by the loud minority (is that the opposite?) and don't actually seem to be in the majority after all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow, do you have some weird fantasies.

Fantasies? I'm simply looking at the reality of his proposal. It would be exceedingly hard on hostages and we would see a lot more hostage-taking because it would be so much more effective.

Hint: the word "would" is not part of the domain of the word "reality " as you've used it.

Which doesn't address my point one bit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What some crime infested cities like NY or San Francisco really need are some inspector Callahan [ Clunk Eastwood] like no nonsense cops for real, brandishing Magnum 44's. It can be done as Mayor, Giuliani cleaned up New York city under his watch to such an extent that taking a stroll in Central Park at night was safe. And left a clean and almost crime free city. Compare NY then to the cesspool it's become now.

You do realize stop-and-frisk was criminal activity, right?

Sacrificing a little inconvenience for results achieved would be well tolerated by the vast silent majority methinks.

Those who sacrifice freedom for safety usually end up with neither.

 

[angelo]

Sacrificing a little inconvenience for results achieved would be well tolerated by the vast silent majority methinks.

angelo, would you say that if you yourself were subject to stop-and-frisk? Do you have any better arguments than how one must break eggs to make an omelet?

Whatever the method. Giuliani most certainly cleaned up the cesspool that was NYC back then. Look at a picture of then and now. Yea, yea i hear you say. But the authorities are stepping on my freedom to do what i wish you say. But I say you can't have it both ways. You either eliminate crime and the dregs of society or you don't!