Police brutality and police reform (US)
couple links. im sure you can find others. the video is essentially showing the killing so be advised.
Minneapolis police were called to a scene involving a possibly bad check at a grocery store. police say he was resisting arrest. one officer is shown to kneel with full body weight on Floyds neck, while Floyd tells the officer he cant breathe, the officer continues to suffocate Floyd until he appears to become unconscious and Floyd dies either on the way to hospital/or at hospital depending on the reports.
police initially recorded the event as "suspect had medical distress".
this is one of those events where i believe that every single officer at the scene should be fired at the minimum for allowing Floyd to be killed in their presence and obviously the officer killing floyd to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. i have not looked up the minnesota murder statutes but in my jurisdiction this would seem to be Murder 2, imo which is the "depraved mind" willful disregard for human life non premeditation version.
i dont know if there will be much discussion on this one as it appears fairly cut and dry that this was an absolute unnecessary killing over some groceries in a depression. but i thought it deserved a thread.
Btw approx one households every 3 has guns both in Switzerland and in Finland but "for some reasons" they don't have any kind of significant gun crime
Can you walk into a Walmart there and just buy one? Or is there some sort of more selective vetting process, perchance?
But yeah, I got what you were driving at, they don't have as much melanin per capita.
Can you walk into a Walmart there and just buy one? Or is there some sort of more selective vetting process, perchance?
But yeah, I got what you were driving at, they don't have as much melanin per capita.
They don't have the same propensity to crime among the population.
And btw finland has 3x the murder rate of switzerland , with more white people as a % of the population (afaik).
Highest murder rate in the EU is Latvia which is perhaps the whitest country, or one of the whitest (many other countries have more non white immigrants)
I get that when murder rate is very low, if the population is small rare events can increase it temporarily a lot, but iirc significant differences remain even when comparing mostly-white countries.
The balkans for a while had very high murder rate (compared to say Spain or Italy).
Fact is that if you can pinpoint countries where guns are very common among civilians, and so easy to procure for criminals (stealing them isn't that hard), but still gun violence isn't high, it means prioritizing gun control can't be correct.
While afaik there are no countries with really high crime rates that don't also have high murder rates.
Tl;dr: reducing crime through policies always work to save lives, even at the margin. Reducing gun access doesn't necessarily unless it's done in a really extreme way
They don't have the same propensity to crime among the population.
And btw finland has 3x the murder rate of switzerland , with more white people as a % of the population (afaik).
Highest murder rate in the EU is Latvia which is perhaps the whitest country, or one of the whitest (many other countries have more non white immigrants)
I get that when murder rate is very low, if the population is small rare events can increase it temporarily a lot
You think people are born with an innate "propensity to crime"? Could it be, perhaps, that wealth inequality contributes to this propensity?
Also, you didn't answer the question about how easy it is to obtain guns in those countries. Perhaps this "propensity to crime" is exacerbated by the fact that just about anyone can walk into their local shop in America and buy an arsenal?
Lol comon it's a list: a well regulated militia AND the right to keep and bear arms, shallnot to be infringed. That comma is an AND. And it's very clear from the drafting of the amendment itself.
It's definitely not a list - the militia clause gives the reason the right to bear arms was deemed necessary.
It can certainly be interpreted various ways, but IMO it's clear that weapons were expected to be regulated. And really I would be fine with any arms that existed in 1789 be unrestricted. Feel free to keep a musket in your house if you want to.
The SC has made an arbitrary line about what modern weaponry is allowed. So they say handguns can't be restricted, but nuclear bombs can be. Again it's just the court making up things that aren't really found in the constitution and should be able to be determined by voters. People like you think the states should be able to set their own rules for most things, but not for this.
You think people are born with an innate "propensity to crime"? Could it be, perhaps, that wealth inequality contributes to this propensity?
Also, you didn't answer the question about how easy it is to obtain guns in those countries. Perhaps this "propensity to crime" is exacerbated by the fact that just about anyone can walk into their local shop in America and buy an arsenal?
I don't know how innate it could be, but it should be at least a tad because all behavioural propensities are inheritable .
But that doesn't matter much as we want to fix things now, not in a faraway distant future, so if it's 100% environmental but the environment is (say) what the mother eats when pregnant, sure go on and fix that meanwhile what do you do for the 15+ years where that has no effect at all?
In those countries you have licensing basically, but once the guns are distributed among the populations, i don't get why you don't get that criminals will always have guns, if they want to.
It's not like a criminal gang is without guns in finland (or switzerland). It's that there are far fewer criminal gangs as a % of the population
Criminals in all countries have guns, so this is irrelevant. My question was how easy it is to obtain guns legally.
In some countries it's actually really hard to have guns even for criminals, outside super-organized ones.
Even domestic terrorists in italy had quite a hard time procure significant amounts of weapons which is why basically all domestic terrorist attacks were homemade bombs (or construction demolition material retooled as a bomb).
TIL that a "businessman" who has committed fraud his whole career being prosecuted for fraud is "communism". That's certainly.... a hot take.
Spoiler
I'm sure you must feel the same way about Michael Avenatti going to prison for fraud - i.e. that his prosecution and conviction were politically motivated, thus communism. If not, please explain the difference.
Original point links back to
a) Size of the fine - indicative of what risk other developers face. Who is going to want to do business there taking into consideration taxes and other loopholes when this risk now sits on the table when it doesn't elsewhere? What effect will this have on the long-term development of the great NY? Exodus of investors/developers/entrepreneurs usually ensues when Communist takeovers happen.
b) State imposing their own evaluation of potentially seized property if such (arguably) exorbitant fine is not paid. This is the most obvious Communist move at play.
c) The general condition of other factors obviously going on in that state, e.g. school shutdowns for housing migrants.
Thick grey line on where "fraud" gets drawn here. Are people who willingly sell their sports betting accounts to sharps "frauding" the bookies, and worthy of getting sued for ~10% of their NW? In the wrong kind of environment, sure, mobsters /Communist governments will throw the little guy in jail. That is why we don't do business with offshore books or even go to those places. NY was not intended to be that way Subjective example, but you get the point.
Out of interest I'll look at that case anyway. Personally, I think there is some level political motivation involved with this case involved against Trump, but the bigger problem lies in the overall State's handling of the case among other issues. Honestly, you'd have to be dumb to see otherwise.
In some countries it's actually really hard to have guns even for criminals, outside super-organized ones.
Even domestic terrorists in italy had quite a hard time procure significant amounts of weapons which is why basically all domestic terrorist attacks were homemade bombs (or construction demolition material retooled as a bomb).
Right. So you agree that in a country where there are no barriers to obtaining guns legally, it makes it much easier for criminals to obtain guns illegally, then?
Original point links back to
a) Size of the fine - indicative of what risk other developers face. Who is going to want to do business there taking into consideration taxes and other loopholes when this risk now sits on the table when it doesn't elsewhere? What effect will this have on the long-term development of the great NY? Exodus of investors/developers/entrepreneurs usually ensues when Communist takeovers happen.
b) State imposing their
None of what you've said there remotely points to communism. This "red under the bed" mentality is laughable. I'm not even convinced you know what communism is. Hint: it's more than just a buzzword Fox news throws around to scare simpletons, and it doesn't mean "things in politics I don't like". Words mean things.
I don't know how innate it could be, but it should be at least a tad because all behavioural propensities are inheritable .
But that doesn't matter much as we want to fix things now, not in a faraway distant future, so if it's 100% environmental but the environment is (say) what the mother eats when pregnant, sure go on and fix that meanwhile what do you do for the 15+ years where that has no effect at all?
In those countries you have licensi
So what's your argument? That high gun crime is not positively correlated with ease of access to guns? And if it is, then there is no causal link, but the confounding variable is "propensity to crime"?
So what's your argument? That high gun crime is not positively correlated with ease of access to guns? And if it is, then there is no causal link, but the confounding variable is "propensity to crime"?
That it's not linear, and that it matters much less than propensity to crime.
Ie, even if you somehow halved the amount of guns currently in circulation in the USA, and put licensing as a requirement to buy guns for everyone, and used red flag laws a lot more, gun violence would be almost the same.
Keep in mind that halving the amount of guns currently in circulation is already asking for a lot more than what the median democrat asks for.
If you somehow managed to "pull an australia", ie reduce the amount of guns in circulation by 95-99, somehow secured the border to make it close to impossible for guns to irregularly come from the mexican border or by boat, and required "special reasons" for people to own a gun, then yes you would reduce gun violence by a lot.
But, aside the complete unconstitutionality of the above,
1) forcing americans to give back at least 290m of the 300m guns they own privately is literally impossible. Many millions of people + all criminals wouldn't give them back.
2) securing the border against illegal gun import in large quantities is absolutely impossible (keep in mind how profitable that trade would become if guns in the USA Get the australian treatment)
3) it would require a permanent police state of the kind the american population won't accept , both from the left and from the right (for different reasons).
So gun control initiatives in the USA are close to useless. What would be needed to have a significant effect on crime is impossible to do, and the rest is anyway currently unconstitutional with this scotus (but even if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a difference). Please remind you had a very leftist SCOTUS pre Heller, wrt gun control.
Pre Heller (2008) it's not like gun crime was low, then the right came, SCOTUS defended the 2a too much, and gun crime increased massively right?
The focus on gun control on the left is an attempt at misdirection. They can't admit their fairly recent absurd takes on policing are part of the problem, and that crime has to be fought with state violence as the only solution. They can't admit some minorities (for whatever reasons), and some white subdemographics in some areas, have sky high propensities to crime and that's the only reason why crime is high.
That it's not linear, and that it matters much less than propensity to crime.
Ie, even if you somehow halved the amount of guns currently in circulation in the USA, and put licensing as a requirement to buy guns for everyone, and used red flag laws a lot more, gun violence would be almost the same.
Keep in mind that halving the amount of guns currently in circulation is already asking for a lot more than what the median democrat asks for.
If
I think you need to secure the border from export as Mexico is overwhelmed with guns and one gun store as well I Canada pistols and assault rifles are illegal to buy yet gun violence is on the rise thanks to the criminals who just had gun crimes get less jail time
The US already has draconian sentencing laws and they haven't proved to be a deterrent to crime. What do you propose? Putting together vigilante groups to shoot minor drug dealers in the streets a la Duterte?
Now is there some other "trick" which isn't about gun control, nor direct policing, that can reduce crime in a cost effective way? you bet.
Legalizing drugs comes first (and this the left gets much more than the right, although things are changing luckly for everyone).
Street lights appear to be a very cost effective solution.
Using house arrest much more when possible instead of actual incarceration helps a lot as well.
"throwing the key" for career criminals does as well.
And so on and on. And smart people left and right focus on this more. But "let's use more street lights in high crime areas" doesn't touch the culture war so too many people don't discuss it.
While if you dare to say "keeping a criminal in jail means fewer criminals in the road" you are a racist because many criminals are blacks, this is kinda where we are at the moment.
The US already has draconian sentencing laws and they haven't proved to be a deterrent to crime. What do you propose? Putting together vigilante groups to shoot minor drug dealers in the streets a l a Duterte?
For drugs i actually propose complete legalization. In an ideal world SCOTUS says that federal drug laws are all unconstitutional (except those dealing with the border). That the feds can't tell residents in California (or any other state) which substances are legal to produce, sell and consume full stop.
This would lead to inevitable legalization in most/all states and a massive reduction in crime.
You could actually reverse commerce clause shenanigans by claiming that if something is legal to produce sell and consume in one state, then the commerce clause makes it legal everywhere in the union. That was actually the only purpose of the commerce clause, to block states from reducing internal trade.
Agree with legalisation of most drugs and the other common sense suggestions above. Disagree that stricter gun controls would not also help.
For drugs i actually propose complete legalization. In an ideal world SCOTUS says that federal drug laws are all unconstitutional (except those dealing with the border). That the feds can't tell residents in California (or any other state) which substances are legal to produce, sell and consume full stop.
This would lead to inevitable legalization in most/all states and a massive reduction in crime.
sure i mean no cash bail and not prosecute crimes under 900 dollars has worked so well, let's make crack legal, i can't see any downside ..
What, lock up suspects indefinitely without access to a lawyer or a courtroom on suspicion of being a gang member? That model?
Oh there might be a few constitutional issues but the PM of El Salvador got re-elected with 84% of the vote .
I’d start with declaring the cartels and gangs as terrorists
sure i mean no cash bail and not prosecute crimes under 900 dollars has worked so well, let's make crack legal, i can't see any downside ..
If you make it legal you can regulate it's production, sale and consumption like we do for legal substances. That means far far far less deaths (linked to fentanyl ending up mixing with other substances). It also means you can treat addiction properly with medical knowledge for everyone who suffers from it.
It also means it's far cheaper so people don't steal to buy, nor kill to control the ground to sell it.
It also means you can help people consume it properly, limiting damage. NGO can spring up helping people all along the way like we help people quit nicotine.
Meanwhile with it illegal it is badly produced (and so far more deadly, and with far worse side effects), badly consumed (people have no notions of proper dosage, how to deal with acute side effects and so on), addicted people aren't treated properly (hard to be if you are considered a criminal when you consume it), and people steal and kill to buy and sell it.
It's not like the world if perfect if crack is around. Crack being around is bad in aggregate for society. But the solution of making it illegal is worse than the problem.
Oh there might be a few constitutional issues but the PM of El Salvador got re-elected with 84% of the vote .
I’d start with declaring the cartels and gangs as terrorists
Do you see the situation in El Salvador as the same as the situation in the USA?
Do you think such measures would also be met with similarly high approval percentages in the USA?
