3 ms·

Yes, I am declining to talk about theoreticals that serve no purpose other than to distract from the core issue: GP wants the cops to be able to arrest and jai

Yes, I am declining to talk about theoreticals that serve no purpose other than to distract from the core issue: GP wants the cops to be able to arrest and jail people despite what the electorate has voted on. The author has in various posts brought up: their interpretation of jailing statistics in a generalized way, the concept of restraining orders for abusive spouses (this is supposed to be equal to banning a person from a large portion of a city), prosecutorial overreach, the imminent overdose deaths that the cops are already framing as being the DA’s fault, and so on. You will notice that each and every supposed carefully-reasoned chain of logic ends with “The cops should have the power to arrest and jail people despite the representative of the electorate or policies voted on by the majority.” I understand that you would prefer that this conversation were about abstract mathematical concepts of jailing. That is a fantastic way to abstract away the human cost of allowing cops the ability to arrest and jail people without them having due process. It definitely makes the idea of sacrificing the concept of basic human rights seem more palatable. So let’s try this again: Use your math concepts of jailing to justify giving the police unilateral power to jail people despite the policies voted on by the people of San Francisco (or not!) If that’s not interesting to you, then I would refer you to the OP, which was about the SFPD seeking the ability to put 28 individuals in jail if spotted on the wrong street. I decline your invitation to entertain nonsense philosophical or mathematical conjecture to avoid talking about the SFPD’s failed attempted power grab. Which again, is the topic of the article and the subject of my conversation on this topic.

mlyle 4y ago
You specifically rejected a point. I responded to talk about that point. Now you want me to defend everything someone else has said. > So let’s try this again: Use your math concepts of jailing to justify giving the police unilateral power to jail people despite the policies voted on by the people of San Francisco (or not!) Again, this is so far over the line. It's not something I've talked about. Indeed, no one except you is talking about arbitrary police powers to jail, as far as I can tell, but instead talking about the appropriateness of civil orders. I don't really want to talk about civil orders, because my answer is: it's complicated! I do think civil restraining orders are often good, which are a power of the police to jail if you go certain places or near certain people. One that covers a 50 block area to prevent broad sets of possible criminality is probably bad. But that has never been what I've been talking about in this thread. You talked on the other topic, which I responded about, and you've refused to talk about any more. What is the exact thing you are trying to achieve here? Are you trying to convince people? Are you trying to make yourself feel good by making other people feel bad? I had hoped to share ideas and really discuss, instead of being lambasted for other peoples' words.

mlyle 4y ago

You specifically rejected a point. I responded to talk about that point. Now you want me to defend everything someone else has said. > So let’s try this again: Use your math concepts of jailing to justify giving the police unilateral power to jail people despite the policies voted on by the people of San Francisco (or not!) Again, this is so far over the line. It's not something I've talked about. Indeed, no one except you is talking about arbitrary police powers to jail, as far as I can tell, but instead talking about the appropriateness of civil orders. I don't really want to talk about civil orders, because my answer is: it's complicated! I do think civil restraining orders are often good, which are a power of the police to jail if you go certain places or near certain people. One that covers a 50 block area to prevent broad sets of possible criminality is probably bad. But that has never been what I've been talking about in this thread. You talked on the other topic, which I responded about, and you've refused to talk about any more. What is the exact thing you are trying to achieve here? Are you trying to convince people? Are you trying to make yourself feel good by making other people feel bad? I had hoped to share ideas and really discuss, instead of being lambasted for other peoples' words.