5 ms·

The author has now written literally thousands of words that boil down to “I think the cops should be able to put those 28 people in jail even if the DA disagre

The author has now written literally thousands of words that boil down to “I think the cops should be able to put those 28 people in jail even if the DA disagrees.” What he hasn’t addressed (I think, I haven’t read every tome he’s posted) is that this DA is who the people of SF voted for. When people complain about “prosecutorial discretion” without talking about campaigning and voting for another DA, it’s common to hear loads of drivel that boils down to “I know the people of this city want these prosecution policies, but I disagree with them. Rather than try to change minds, I support a unilateral transfer of power to a group that says they have my approved ideology.” The problem with that line of thinking is that it puts the cops above the electorate in terms of influence. It’s a terribly slippery slope, but it’s very common in America. “Freedom and liberty means that the police arrest people that I don’t like! Even if society in general doesn’t want the police to have that much power, who cares? I, Supreme Understander, am more worthy and human than them!” Edit: Oh wait the author did respond to another poster that brought up replacing the DA or seeking a remedy from the state. Sounds like they would like that, but for whatever 700-word reason it’s important to shift unilateral power to the police either way. Just in case.

mlyle 4y ago
> The author has now written literally thousands of words that boil down to “I think the cops should be able to put those 28 people in jail even if the DA disagrees.” * I don't think he's said quite that * I don't agree with what he's said entirely. I believe civil injunctions have a place in law enforcement, but they need to be used carefully. I suspect you support them in some circumstances, too. * Even if he did say that, it doesn't invalidate the rest of what he said. It's worth looking at rates of admission to prison vs. prison terms to better compare US jurisprudence to the rest of the world. > When people complain about “prosecutorial discretion” without talking about campaigning and voting for another DA I think these people are looking forward to voting for another DA and advocating for other policy approaches being used by DAs. BTW, prosecutorial discretion makes me super uncomfortable for other reasons. Often it means the good-ole-boys club being immune to prosecution for offenses. Sometimes its use is conducive to justice and the rule of law, and a whole lot of time it's not. At least here it is being used in ways that are not reinforcing power structures. > “Freedom and liberty means that the police arrest people that I don’t like! Even if society in general doesn’t want the police to have that much power, who cares? I, Supreme Understander, am more worthy and human than them!” Parodying someone else's point and extending it to hyperbole is not conducive to productive discussion, but it's great as a tool to mock people.
- braingenious 4y ago
  Do you believe that the author supports the restraining order against the 28 people? If no: Why are they posting? If yes: Do you believe that the author supports the restraining order but does not expect or want it to cause any of these people to go to jail in the case that they need to access healthcare, treatment, employment or otherwise fully lawful resources within the Tenderloin? What do you think* is the outcome that the author seems to want, out of your careful reading of these posts? If your answer is “I refuse to believe the author has any desired outcome because it would be indecorous of me to take them seriously at face value“ then… okay. A strategic conversation killer doesn’t erase what people advocate for and explain away. It’s not some high brow checkmate. > * Even if he did say that, Lol. I just wanted to say that to how you began this thought. Seems like you might agree with me about what he’s saying! Anyway, back to the rest of the quote: > it doesn't invalidate the rest of what he said. It's worth looking at rates of admission to prison vs. prison terms to better compare US jurisprudence to the rest of the world. Why? Because the author brought it up in support of some ridiculous expansion of police power to jail people that haven’t committed a crime? I am intellectually responsible for chasing down every patently silly interpretation of data because… why? This person is using every trick possible to try to justify giving the police power above elected officials and I’m fully aware that they have decided that a narrow definition of “extreme” coupled with a very narrow focus is a useful tool. I’m not clear why anybody should be expected to chart out this quixotic version of “reason” that’s so obviously flawed. “Prison isn’t so extreme based on this 20 minutes of research I did after stating my predisposed opinion, therefore cops should be given a whole new type of power to jail people that the city doesn’t want to jail.” is something worth entertaining… why? > BTW, prosecutorial discretion makes me super uncomfortable for other reasons. Often it means the good-ole-boys club being immune to prosecution for offenses. What is the difference between prosecutorial discretion and the direction that would be afforded to police officers? As far as I can tell, in this situation the difference is the social and political ideology espoused by one group (the DA’s office which was elected by the city) and another (1,500 officers with a $600,000,000 annual budget with very little accountability). This entire conversation is simply about power and who wants to allocate it to. The author of the previous posts is advocating for power to be allocated to the police rather than the electorate (the DA), on ideological grounds of “that’s what I want.” > Parodying someone else's point and extending it to hyperbole is not conducive to productive discussion, but it's great as a tool to mock people. Hiding behind politeness in order to strip others of their basic human rights is considerably uglier than making a joke that actually maps 1:1 to what the author supports. “I reject your appeal about basic human rights like due cause, a right to a trial, and protection against illegal search on the grounds that you said a mean thing!” is another hilariously American thing that some intellectually uncurious people say (in whatever words they can summon, of course)

mlyle 4y ago

> The author has now written literally thousands of words that boil down to “I think the cops should be able to put those 28 people in jail even if the DA disagrees.” * I don't think he's said quite that * I don't agree with what he's said entirely. I believe civil injunctions have a place in law enforcement, but they need to be used carefully. I suspect you support them in some circumstances, too. * Even if he did say that, it doesn't invalidate the rest of what he said. It's worth looking at rates of admission to prison vs. prison terms to better compare US jurisprudence to the rest of the world. > When people complain about “prosecutorial discretion” without talking about campaigning and voting for another DA I think these people are looking forward to voting for another DA and advocating for other policy approaches being used by DAs. BTW, prosecutorial discretion makes me super uncomfortable for other reasons. Often it means the good-ole-boys club being immune to prosecution for offenses. Sometimes its use is conducive to justice and the rule of law, and a whole lot of time it's not. At least here it is being used in ways that are not reinforcing power structures. > “Freedom and liberty means that the police arrest people that I don’t like! Even if society in general doesn’t want the police to have that much power, who cares? I, Supreme Understander, am more worthy and human than them!” Parodying someone else's point and extending it to hyperbole is not conducive to productive discussion, but it's great as a tool to mock people.

braingenious 4y ago
Do you believe that the author supports the restraining order against the 28 people? If no: Why are they posting? If yes: Do you believe that the author supports the restraining order but does not expect or want it to cause any of these people to go to jail in the case that they need to access healthcare, treatment, employment or otherwise fully lawful resources within the Tenderloin? What do you think* is the outcome that the author seems to want, out of your careful reading of these posts? If your answer is “I refuse to believe the author has any desired outcome because it would be indecorous of me to take them seriously at face value“ then… okay. A strategic conversation killer doesn’t erase what people advocate for and explain away. It’s not some high brow checkmate. > * Even if he did say that, Lol. I just wanted to say that to how you began this thought. Seems like you might agree with me about what he’s saying! Anyway, back to the rest of the quote: > it doesn't invalidate the rest of what he said. It's worth looking at rates of admission to prison vs. prison terms to better compare US jurisprudence to the rest of the world. Why? Because the author brought it up in support of some ridiculous expansion of police power to jail people that haven’t committed a crime? I am intellectually responsible for chasing down every patently silly interpretation of data because… why? This person is using every trick possible to try to justify giving the police power above elected officials and I’m fully aware that they have decided that a narrow definition of “extreme” coupled with a very narrow focus is a useful tool. I’m not clear why anybody should be expected to chart out this quixotic version of “reason” that’s so obviously flawed. “Prison isn’t so extreme based on this 20 minutes of research I did after stating my predisposed opinion, therefore cops should be given a whole new type of power to jail people that the city doesn’t want to jail.” is something worth entertaining… why? > BTW, prosecutorial discretion makes me super uncomfortable for other reasons. Often it means the good-ole-boys club being immune to prosecution for offenses. What is the difference between prosecutorial discretion and the direction that would be afforded to police officers? As far as I can tell, in this situation the difference is the social and political ideology espoused by one group (the DA’s office which was elected by the city) and another (1,500 officers with a $600,000,000 annual budget with very little accountability). This entire conversation is simply about power and who wants to allocate it to. The author of the previous posts is advocating for power to be allocated to the police rather than the electorate (the DA), on ideological grounds of “that’s what I want.” > Parodying someone else's point and extending it to hyperbole is not conducive to productive discussion, but it's great as a tool to mock people. Hiding behind politeness in order to strip others of their basic human rights is considerably uglier than making a joke that actually maps 1:1 to what the author supports. “I reject your appeal about basic human rights like due cause, a right to a trial, and protection against illegal search on the grounds that you said a mean thing!” is another hilariously American thing that some intellectually uncurious people say (in whatever words they can summon, of course)