3 ms·

>Please indicate how the policies you support, You can't stop straw manning me, can you? Please indicate where I showed support for 'tough policing'? The onl

>Please indicate how the policies you support, You can't stop straw manning me, can you? Please indicate where I showed support for 'tough policing'? The only policy I argued for was this drone program because that has real potential in getting criminals out of the community. The argument about 'tough policing' is not one of support, nor is it a justification of any police brutality. Police officers should be held responsible for breaking the law and 'police brutality' is against the law. All I argued is that the type of policing you get is a result of the environment. I made this argument as a counter argument to the trope that somehow policing causes crime and if we can just fix policing that crime will magically go away. That's not how it works. You can put as many regulations as you want (and police are already highly regulated - for good reason), but you're not going to get easy-going Nordic-style policing in one of the most violent cities in the world. You're also not going to lower crime rates either. Again: that's neither support for, nor a justification of police brutality.

jcranmer 6y ago
On a careful review of your comments, you indeed never actually stated support for "tough policing," so I will retract that portion of my statement. On the other hand, you did say at the very beginning, and I will quote your words here: > Victim-rights trump criminal-rights. which I am honestly not sure how it is meant to be interpreted, if not as a statement of support for "tough policing" (at least in theory, since any policy that generally priotizes ensuring the criminals are caught over police not violating their moral, and constitutional, obligations is very likely to result in police violating those obligations).
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >which I am honestly not sure how it is meant to be interpreted Here's how: we have entire movements preoccupied with spreading FUD over any policy that aims to curb crime. We have movements preoccupied with letting violent criminals out of prison (trust me, there is no way to reduce the prison population without releasing violent offenders). This story is an example of this. Look at the facts: Baltimore is one of the most violent cities in the world (not just in Maryland, not just in USA, in the effin world). What that means is that there are a lot of innocent people being victimized by criminals. There are parents trying to raise their children in these neighborhoods and are desperately hoping that they their children don't get assaulted, killed or recruited into gangs or drugs, as they walk to school. All those tech bros in this thread wouldn't drive through some of these neighborhood. They wouldn't even let their children watch PG-13 movies due to the violence ... but there are children living in those violent neighborhoods day-in and day-out. Who is standing up for them? I don't see ACLU lawsuits to protect their rights - do you? There is an attempt to curb this by introducing a drone program to attempt to provide some relief for this by improving police investigative powers and catch more criminals. And this program is the opposite of 'tough policing'. ACLU and other organizations focus lawsuits on this program to get rid of it (not to create common sense policies around, but to get rid of it) - why? Because they care more about safeguarding criminal rights, then the rights of citizens to safety. It's fucked up and that's what I mean by "Victim-rights trump criminal-rights."

jcranmer 6y ago

On a careful review of your comments, you indeed never actually stated support for "tough policing," so I will retract that portion of my statement. On the other hand, you did say at the very beginning, and I will quote your words here: > Victim-rights trump criminal-rights. which I am honestly not sure how it is meant to be interpreted, if not as a statement of support for "tough policing" (at least in theory, since any policy that generally priotizes ensuring the criminals are caught over police not violating their moral, and constitutional, obligations is very likely to result in police violating those obligations).

macspoofing 6y ago
>which I am honestly not sure how it is meant to be interpreted Here's how: we have entire movements preoccupied with spreading FUD over any policy that aims to curb crime. We have movements preoccupied with letting violent criminals out of prison (trust me, there is no way to reduce the prison population without releasing violent offenders). This story is an example of this. Look at the facts: Baltimore is one of the most violent cities in the world (not just in Maryland, not just in USA, in the effin world). What that means is that there are a lot of innocent people being victimized by criminals. There are parents trying to raise their children in these neighborhoods and are desperately hoping that they their children don't get assaulted, killed or recruited into gangs or drugs, as they walk to school. All those tech bros in this thread wouldn't drive through some of these neighborhood. They wouldn't even let their children watch PG-13 movies due to the violence ... but there are children living in those violent neighborhoods day-in and day-out. Who is standing up for them? I don't see ACLU lawsuits to protect their rights - do you? There is an attempt to curb this by introducing a drone program to attempt to provide some relief for this by improving police investigative powers and catch more criminals. And this program is the opposite of 'tough policing'. ACLU and other organizations focus lawsuits on this program to get rid of it (not to create common sense policies around, but to get rid of it) - why? Because they care more about safeguarding criminal rights, then the rights of citizens to safety. It's fucked up and that's what I mean by "Victim-rights trump criminal-rights."