Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by schumpeter » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

RodericDay wrote: post #75

laurencerowe wrote: post #67

There's a lot left out in Solnit's article, see: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/alex-nieto-w...

> Nieto was clearly a man having a crisis, and his purported reaction when approached by police was not that of a rational person. Told to show his hands, Nieto allegedly demanded that the cops show theirs. He then reportedly drew his taser and fired three times. And so he was shot—and shot and shot—by officers who claim they did not realize Nieto was carrying a less-than-lethal device. This is the stuff she should h…

Here, let me help you out...

> ...there is no mention whatsoever of Nieto’s long and well-documented battle with mental illness. No mention of Nieto’s “history of aggressive and bizarre behavior and auditory hallucinations,” as described in a letter written by District Attorney George Gascón following his office’s investigation of the shooting. Likewise, no mention of “a clinical history of psychosis exacerbated by his failure to take ... medications.” No mention of a police report filed less than three weeks before Nieto’s death by a man alleging that Nieto tased him (Nieto, in turn, filed a police report claiming this was an act of self-defense). No mention of prior incidents in which police intervened when Nieto’s internal battles spilled out into the public sphere. - See more at: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/alex-nieto-w...

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

#82

Post by raldi » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #46

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.

Witness Testifies Alex Nieto Never Drew Weapon http://missionlocal.org/2016/03/witness-testified-alex-nieto...

And multiple other witnesses, including non-policemen, testify that he did.

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

#83

Post by musesum » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:07 PM UTC

laurencerowe wrote: post #67

There's a lot left out in Solnit's article, see: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/alex-nieto-w...

Interesting counterpoint: "60 percent of the people shot by San Francisco police in the preceding nine years were suffering from mental illness."

I suspect that if neighborhoods were more static, then the neighbors would know who was a real threat; fewer false positives.

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

#84

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:07 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #20

dmschulman wrote: post #5

This police-assisted murder is a shame but I don't understand why we expect neighborhoods to remain frozen in time forever, never changing their racial or socioeconomic makeup for as long as the area exists. It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat…

When middle class families move out it's called *-flight. When poor families move out, it's called gentrification. Both are due to economics, some precipitated, not so much by individual bigotry but rather by self interest (the former wanting to preserve value individually in anticipation of devaluation of property, the latter get pushed out due to economics whereby its not viable to remain in a valuating neighborhoo…

I think the difference is choice.

White flight is white folks choosing to move out of an area.

Gentrification is white folks choosing to move in to an area.

No-one else gets a choice. Only the white folks.

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

#85

Post by UVB-76 » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

cbeach wrote: post #72

Joe8Bit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the least economic muscle tend to be the most adversely effected (e.g they lose their homes/tenancies when they can't afford to pay inflated rents). Again, that in itself might not be a problem if there were other places to move that poor communities could afford…

Those doing low-paid work in London are obviously important to the city, but I'd argue that those doing high-paid work make more sense to live in the city because theirs is the work that benefits most from the agglomeration that big cities provide. If low-paid workers have to travel further, then their wages will be forced upwards as a result. Employers are forced to pay prevailing market rates to get the staff they…

The situation in London is complicated by a large influx of workers from elsewhere in the EU, who are willing to live in sub-standard conditions (many to a room, sharing beds, sheds in back gardens, etc.) and work for minimum wage, or even less.

Some larger employers pay a "living wage" on principle, but nobody feels the need to raise wages for unskilled workers for lack of supply.

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

#86

Post by raldi » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

the-dude wrote: post #44

From a European perspective this is more 'Death by police state' than anything else.

What happens in Europe when someone is seen in a public park waving around something that looks like this?

http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

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

#87

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

Because it means that society is rationing resources at a level of scarcity well above the actual level of scarcity. It means that some of the potential utility of just building more housing is being left on the table so that an artificial class conflict can be created between new and existing citizens.

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

#88

Post by blisterpeanuts » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #77

RodericDay wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nieto was clearly a man having a crisis, and his purported reaction when approached by police was not that of a rational person. Told to show his hands, Nieto allegedly demanded that the cops show theirs. He then reportedly drew his taser and fired three times. And so he was shot—and shot and shot—by officers who claim they did not realize Nieto was carrying a less-than-lethal device. This is the stuff she should h…

Normally I'm pretty damn critical of the police, but drawing a gunlike weapon that's actually a weapon and not a plastic toy , while also being clearly out of your right mind... Well, he shouldn't have been shot , but wow.

The police, or at least two of them, claim that he drew the taser. That doesn't mean he actually drew it, but merely that the police did what police often have done in the past--embellish or exaggerate the details to exonerate themselves.

For this reason, and of course also to protect police from dishonest civilian witnesses, body cams should be standard issue equipment. In fact, I'm surprised SFPD hasn't long since required them.

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

#89

Post by Joe8Bit » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

cbeach wrote: post #72

Joe8Bit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the least economic muscle tend to be the most adversely effected (e.g they lose their homes/tenancies when they can't afford to pay inflated rents). Again, that in itself might not be a problem if there were other places to move that poor communities could afford…

Those doing low-paid work in London are obviously important to the city, but I'd argue that those doing high-paid work make more sense to live in the city because theirs is the work that benefits most from the agglomeration that big cities provide. If low-paid workers have to travel further, then their wages will be forced upwards as a result. Employers are forced to pay prevailing market rates to get the staff they…

In a theoretically perfect economic market you're right, but there is little if any evidence to suggest there is a causal link between economic displacement and wage growth. In fact wage growth at the low end has stagnated in London[0] despite the advancing economic displacement of it's low paid workers[1].

[0]: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Economy%20Comm... [1]: http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/lo...

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

#90

Post by BillinghamJ » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

mtalantikite wrote: post #68

czechdeveloper wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no such thing as shooting to not kill.

Officers are (correctly) trained that if they are in a situation which warrants them shooting, they should use all of the bullets currently loaded into their gun.

The issue is that in the US, officers seem to come to the conclusion that killing the person is warranted way too quickly.