Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 318 posts

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#61

Post by Agustus »

raldi wrote: post #27
pc86 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the opposition to the Ellis Act? If I own a home and want to sell it, I shouldn't be limited to selling it to someone who wants to be a landlord (a very small minority of people). And if I buy a home, I shouldn't be forced to rent it to someone. If you rent a home you do not own it and you should not have any claim to what happens to it beyond the end of your current lease.

By the Copenhagen Theory of Ethics ( https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... ), once you rent an apartment to someone for a particular price, you have a moral obligation to continue doing that forever.

This was tried during the 1600's and 1700's, there were 99 year leases on land between the gentry and the yeomen. When costs increased, the gentry were unable to adjust the price on their leases and paved the way for social upheavals.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#62

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

Nutmog wrote: post #36
eitally wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in order for cities to function properly, it's important that blue collar workers are able to afford to inhabit them. Un-governed gentrification and unreasonably low levels of low income housing result in situations like exist in the SFBA now, where many middle class households are either forced into extraordinarily long commutes (leads to higher stress, worse health and increased mortality) or cramped living…

What force makes people stay living in the same rented house no matter how bad it makes their life? Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job? That sounds kind of unbelievable. Are they unmotivated to move because it's too much hard work? Afraid of losing friends and being unable to make new ones? I…

"Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job" Do you know how expensive it is to move? I mean, move across the country from the Bay Area? Should people be forced to move into the Central Valley, a 2+ hour train/public transit commute into the SFBA? What kind of crap quality of life is that?

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#64

Post by raldi »

true_religion wrote: post #16
raldi wrote: post #6

This is the taser Alex Nieto pointed at the police and refused to drop (if the police are telling the truth): http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

Allegedly. In any case, that makes it to trial, the police by default have always claimed that a weapon was pointed at them, and the suspect refused to cooperate. It's the only reasonable defense, and plays out better than the more realistic "cooperation wasn't instantaneous, we argued, and then my fellow officer started shooting for unknown reasons so I automatically shot too".

In this case, there are multiple bystanders who testify they say Nieto pointing the weapon at people and the dog:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Man-killed-by-S-F-police...

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#65

Post by justaman »

czechdeveloper wrote: post #63
Fiahil wrote: post #35

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

People don't fall dead after single bullet like in movies. In real scenarios 40 bullets are quite usual.

This means each officer probably fired 10 rounds. This can be done in less than 5 seconds with a standard issue glock.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#66

Post by Rapzid »

hutzlibu wrote: post #54
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #30

Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country? Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment? Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.

Thats the whole point. The victim worked in security - he knew about police work. So either the police was lying (as one witness said) or they did not identify themself as police

Not just worked in security; "He had graduated from community college with a focus on criminal justice". The article leads us to believe that they identified themselves from 90ft away near or after dark with "Show me your hands". If they are not lying it certainly sounds like he was not convinced they were police and they did a poor job of identifying themselves.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#68

Post by mtalantikite »

czechdeveloper wrote: post #63
Fiahil wrote: post #35

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

People don't fall dead after single bullet like in movies. In real scenarios 40 bullets are quite usual.

I'm pretty sure the OP was trying to state that shooting to kill shouldn't be the normal thing police do.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#69

Post by RodericDay »

tinco wrote: post #21

This article seems to miss some crucial details. How does a jury go from the given description of a man armed with only a Taser being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed and vote unanimously in the police's favor? Was the question asked to the jury more specific, did the Guardian leave something out or was the jury really racist as the Guardian implies (by listing their races)?

The article provides some key details you don't mention here:

> It was a civil trial, so the standard was not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just the “preponderance of evidence”. No one was facing prison, but if the city and officers were found liable, there could be a large financial settlement and it could affect the careers of the policemen. The trial was covered by several local media outlets. On Thursday 10 March, after an afternoon and morning of deliberations, the eight jurors – five white, one Asian woman and two Asian men – unanimously ruled in favour of the police on all counts.

Namely:

- It was a civil trial,

- preponderance of evidence was required,

- the penalty would come back to hurt the tax-base,

- the jurors were insulated from the racial component.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#70

Post by rayiner »

advaits wrote: post #48

It is true that this case has the signs of unnecessary, racially-biased police brutality written all over it. It is also true that gentrification in SF is causing serious problems and culture clashes. But I think it's unfair and quite a stretch to take this example and say that 'gentrification' is directly responsible for this killing. The underlying problems here are racism and police brutality, which in this case a…

The death wasn't caused by racism and police brutality in the abstract. It was caused by the confluence of the two that manifests in the context of gentrification. Cities have a huge incentive to police these neighborhoods in a way that makes the gentrifiers "feel safe." That causes an atypically unstable situation.
Post reply on HN