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

231–240 of 318 posts

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

#231

Post by mooseburger »

nkrisc wrote: post #155
mooseburger wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"walking while hispanic" I'm hispanic, Puertorican to be exact. Guy seemed to be dressed like a hoodlum in all images I can see in the article. I get nervous when I see people dressed like that here in San Juan, and he definitely would have seemed shady wandering around in a park, alone, dressed like that. Sure, maybe it's not tolerant to judge someone like that based on what they wear, but at the same time, I can't…

Wearing 49ers jacket and hat in San Francisco is dressing like a hoodlum?

By itself, no. Were the jacket and pants oversized? How did he style his hair and facial hair? Lots of ways to signal "I am a thug", even if you aren't.

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

#232

Post by yoo1I »

tptacek wrote: post #227
yoo1I wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, obviously the less police and the general public are put in this position the better, and when there is a gunman running around the neighborhood, there better be police to subdue, and yes, if it's required to save other lives, kill him. The point here, though is not to deny police their right to self defense, the point is to train them in a way that their first action to exercise that right is not with as much…

That's actually not my point. My preferred solution to this problem isn't utopian. We could do it tomorrow: Step 1: Ensure every police patrol vehicle has a shotgun locked in the trunk. Step 2: Take away handguns from all patrol officers.

I think that's an entirely reasonable policy.

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

#233

Post by borvo »

tptacek wrote: post #210
pm24601 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nieto's mental illness if it exists, is not relevant. Many people are "mentally ill" but not a danger to anyone else. In fact 50% of the people killed by police are "mentally ill". Also consider that having severe depression, autism, ADD, etc. are considered mental illnesses. Alex's Nieto's "mental illness", even if existent, is not an excuse for his death.

You are entitled to that perspective. You might be right. But Solnit is not entitled to make that decision for all of her readers by withholding that detail. I am going to gently push back on you, though, because you're making it sound as if Nieto had a completely unrelated historical diagnosis that is being used here as a smokescreen. Here are some details salient, I personally think, to this case: * Nieto had been…

This is not a gentle pushback, you're seeking to blame the victim without quoting any sources. Your inference that the story is "corroborated by Nieto's history" is pure speculation and does not explain the contradictory statements given by the police officers. If you've left something out here then I apologise but this story disgusted me, as does your comment.

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

#234

Post by marcus_holmes »

zeveb wrote: post #127
marcus_holmes wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No-one else gets a choice. Only the white folks. That's not really fair. White flight was a result of mandatory school integration policies, which forced middle-class (i.e., by-and-large white) and lower-class (i.e., by-and-large black) children into the same schools; white folks didn't have a choice about that, nor did those who stayed a bit longer have a choice about the continued decline of their cities. Poor ci…

Really? White folks were forced to move away because their kids might go to school with black kids?

Only in America...

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

#235

Post by marcus_holmes »

SerLava wrote: post #120
marcus_holmes wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there a word for people refusing to move? Because then every possible housing decision by a white person could be framed as a terrible thing.

hehe fair point :)

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

#236

Post by refurb »

joesmo wrote: post #193
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)?

How can you not get one Hispanic juror on your jury in San Francisco? This to me, is mind blowing. I'm not saying the jury was racist necessarily, just ignorant. Some people go against all reason and trust cops despite common sense that says not to. It's hard to fathom, but I think that's where a lot of these problems come from. One minute, you have a senior in high school who bullies, beats up other students, and ca…

Because most people try their best to not serve on a jury? I served on a jury in SF not long ago. ~80% of people called were dismissed due to hardship, which I assume would impact lower income folks more.

The remaining ~18% tried their best during questioning to make sure they were kicked off the jury. We ended up with a jury that was mostly professionals or retired folks.

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

#237

Post by Ygg2 »

barrkel wrote: post #141
tptacek wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't call the police, he didn't report a gun. He was an asshole. We are all assholes, many times per week.

Applying the same label to different people doesn't make them equal or equivalent. He certainly wasn't a murderer, not even close. But he was an unusually big asshole. I, for one, do not express any serious wish to shoot people very often. I certainly wouldn't express it in writing over any electronic medium in today's world, but that's a different discussion.

I'd be inclined the believe that, if the title wasn't - Death by gentrification.

I mean, you could write the title - Death by Snu Snu and you could paint his girlfriend as some shady character.

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

#238

Post by JoeAltmaier »

tptacek wrote: post #227
yoo1I wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, obviously the less police and the general public are put in this position the better, and when there is a gunman running around the neighborhood, there better be police to subdue, and yes, if it's required to save other lives, kill him. The point here, though is not to deny police their right to self defense, the point is to train them in a way that their first action to exercise that right is not with as much…

That's actually not my point. My preferred solution to this problem isn't utopian. We could do it tomorrow: Step 1: Ensure every police patrol vehicle has a shotgun locked in the trunk. Step 2: Take away handguns from all patrol officers.

Let me expand on that: when discovering a violent, armed offender, 1 Policeman dies. Then their partner fetches the locked-up shotgun. Hopefully before they die too.

Gonna need a lot more Policemen. Because, attrition.

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

#239

Post by tryitnow »

tptacek wrote: post #113
navait wrote: post #103

> Evan Snow, a thirtysomething “user experience design professional”..., who had moved to the neighbourhood about six months earlier (and who has since departed for a more suburban environment) > Snow never seemed to recognise that his out-of-control dog was the aggressor: “So Luna was, I think, looking to move around the benches or behind me to run up happily to get a chip from Mr Nieto. Mr Nieto became further – wh…

This is a person Rebecca Solnit chose to single out, carefully juxtaposing reports of his (incredibly obnoxious) behavior against Nieto's shooting, to which, even by Solnit's account (read carefully), he was not a party . I don't want to get drinks with this character in Solnit's story, either. But I'm not sure we should applaud the tactic of summoning up and focusing outrage on people like this.

Nope. Sorry, Evan Snow's recklessness in not getting his dog under control resulted in a innocent person getting shot, and cops whose careers are probably ruined.

Snow deserves a big chunk of blame here.

It's simple folks: if you're not highly confident that your dog will behave itself

For those of you who still harbor sympathy for Snow, do a Google search for people who have been mauled by out of control dogs.

Now Snow's dog didn't end up biting, but that's beside the point. His dog clearly caused a major disturbance because he didn't control it. Snow's recklness is the root cause of this profound tragedy.

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

#240

Post by the-dude »

goldbrick wrote: post #220
the-dude wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are welcome to visit. edit: this was in reply to 'if you are, you are living in fantasy land'. which OP edited away. lame.

Please provide one piece of evidence that police anywhere are trained to "shoot to disable".

https://www.politie.nl/themas/schietincident.html
Post reply on HN