A bunch of crazy yahoos as seen on Fox News drove the BLM movement and the subsequent changes to policing and criminal courts. For those who had to live through the unpleasantness of progressive DAs letting out felons and giving them a slap on the wrist, it has been not quite so funny...
American Politics Discussion Thread
|
(February 27th, 2024, 10:53)greenline Wrote: A bunch of crazy yahoos as seen on Fox News drove the BLM movement and the subsequent changes to policing and criminal courts. For those who had to live through the unpleasantness of progressive DAs letting out felons and giving them a slap on the wrist, it has been not quite so funny... What changes in policing and the criminal courts? Darrell (February 27th, 2024, 11:58)darrelljs Wrote:(February 27th, 2024, 10:53)greenline Wrote: A bunch of crazy yahoos as seen on Fox News drove the BLM movement and the subsequent changes to policing and criminal courts. For those who had to live through the unpleasantness of progressive DAs letting out felons and giving them a slap on the wrist, it has been not quite so funny... Many local elections saw progressive DAs and lawmakers win big in 2020: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/26/938425725...med-unfair https://theconversation.com/progressive-...end-149322 Since being elected, these officials made one of their goals a reduction in prison populations and sentencing - as was part of their stated policy goals. This has resulted in many cases of repeat offenders being given easy sentences when committing another violent crime. Here are some examples: https://thevillagesun.com/opinion-than-h...not-served https://www.latimes.com/california/story...d-as-adult If one does not want to believe that the rise of such policies would have an impact on crime, as there has been a noted increase in all kinds of violent crime following 2020, perhaps they can look to blame it all on a sudden injection of lead into the atmosphere from somewhere. If you want to see the process working in reverse, one can look at the recent changes done in El Salvador, where president Bukele saw a large reduction in crime by locking up repeat offenders and giving them harsh sentences. (February 26th, 2024, 17:48)Mjmd Wrote: Biden in a speech told Israel "not to be consumed by rage as we were after 9/11". Do I wish he would come out A LOT more strongly yes. Should we be giving them any aid. NO. There were 2 formal apologies from the UK for the invasion of Iraq, AFAIK, none from the US. To tell the truth, I am still kind of pissed when I saw that speech. First for failing to issue an apology, then disguising it as a crime of passion while it is by all accounts, deliberate and premeditated. And, he would get brownie points for that Free Tibet - Wherever The Fuck That Is Our free range troll Keeping Everyone Honest
So criminal justice is complicated. If you have a firm side on this you probably are wrong.
Most people don't want a police state. Most people also don't want criminals just running around and facing no consequences. There is a reason a lot of golden age leaders get part of their status as great leaders because they are credited with reforming their law codes. ITS HARD. How do you prevent crime****? This is a societal level question that involves more than just hiring more and more police, but not saying that isn't also sometimes required. How long are sentences for each crime? How do you handle vast discrimination in punishment between cases? How many people recommitting crimes is worth how many people being productive members of society again? Sure you can find cases where released criminals went on to do more crime, but how many people released just live their lives vs still being in prison does that equal? Is holding people longer going to reduce or increase likelihood of repeat crime? How do you reintegrate those people into society? How much money are you willing to spend on each of these questions? They all have costs either in real tax dollars or societal. To say these are tough questions is an understatement. This is an issue I understand where both sides are coming from and I am no where near qualified know what the perfect answer is to each of these (and mind you I'm sure I forgot questions). This is one of those issues that is hard to do even if all sides come together in good faith and work on for a decade its very possible to get wrong or at least seem wrong.
Youtube did a half decent job in suppressing the spread of the event, I only found out about it today. Of course there were age restriction on these vids. Some got demonetized Further more, the vids can only be viewed on youtube so I found out when I tried to link to it.
Then I tried to down load 3 times but it keeps sending me a bogus vid with Trump. I had to screen capture this vid, and untitled it, in order to be able to embed it. It is just such travesty that this man set himself on fire and sacrificed his life ( First case being a Buddhist monk set himself on fire in Saigon to protest the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government backed by the U.S.), only to have his cause (genocide of Palestinians and US troop involvement) be diverted by questioning his mental state. I found myself avoiding a lot of the news on the genocide that's going on. I really don't have the stomach for it day in day out. EDIT: LoL, looks like the tube caught it after a while. I am going to try something else just out of curiosity.
SECOND TRY
EDIT: The Google deep scrub machine caught this vid after a few days. Free Tibet - Wherever The Fuck That Is Our free range troll Keeping Everyone Honest
I see so many foreign youtube videos get demonetize all the time. Most of them just for debunking western propaganda. Some of them under special youtube moderator love have a huge list of words they are not allowed to say, such as "nuclear", "mass shooting", or mention some politicians by name. I see videos from channels I've subscribed to not showing up in my Notification. Most effective suppression of freedom of expression.
Free Tibet - Wherever The Fuck That Is Our free range troll Keeping Everyone Honest
That's what happens when you privatize public space. Sure the "state" isn't allowed to "legally" silence people, but private companies can do their best in lockstep with the background forces that actually rule decisionmaking to "omit" them from public view. Combine it with the tendency towards monopolism and you get what you describe. It's a creative workaround, and in my eyes a good example of the hypocrisy that permeates everything over there.
|