Well if the suspect was wrongly accused, they'd have to reimburse the damages. Does the FBI have a budget for such things? Does it involve extra paperwork if it passes a certain threshold? Is the issue here profiling of the demographic or the risk ( in terms of cost ).
FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
11–20 of 393 posts
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#12People with money and power have it better. Yes, clear, thanks for yet another confirmation. This is why I could never enjoy NYC. As a normal middle class dude you always feel everywhere that you are a nothing: no fame/no power/no money = people are rude, aggressive, hostile to you. I never felt that in London, which is a quite comparable city to NYC. I felt welcome in most places despite not being rich or famous.
> no fame/no power/no money = people are rude, aggressive, hostile to you.
No, some New Yorkers, rich or poor, are rude, aggressive, hostile regardless of who you are.
Unless you work for Axe capital. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF46Cel3EUo
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#13Well if the suspect was wrongly accused, they'd have to reimburse the damages. Does the FBI have a budget for such things? Does it involve extra paperwork if it passes a certain threshold? Is the issue here profiling of the demographic or the risk ( in terms of cost ).
> Well if the suspect was wrongly accused, they'd have to reimburse the damages.
Do they? I'm honestly asking, but I would be surprised if most of the time the police (or any 3 letter agency) reimbursed victims for their negligence.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
They briefly mention it, but quickly move on to "the FBI doesn't knock down rich people's doors". In this case it's more likely these particular rich people (i.e. well-connected people in the US government) than a blanket policy of "don't knock down doors in affluent neighborhoods".
Are there many neighborhoods packed with unconnected rich folks?
Not in the DC area, but in plenty of other cities sure.
It's not that they're particularly rich, as far as rich people go, it's that the neighbor is like, the chief of staff for the Senator who's in charge of the committee that sets the FBI's budget. Imagine you're a low to mid level employee of a company, and you go do something that makes all of the CEO's friends, business partners, and investors pissed off at him. Do you think that's going to be good for you?
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#15Just as light bends under the influence of gravity....Looks like rule of law also bends under the influence of capitalism...
In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.
What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#16Just as light bends under the influence of gravity....Looks like rule of law also bends under the influence of capitalism...
In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.
While I agree with the Soviet part (or any political system for that matter) I doubt the pro capitalist generalization would stand to scrutiny:
> At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people.
One could easily find examples that counter these points. I doubt pyramid schemes (think Madoff's schemes) or crypto scams are the only counter-examples possible.
These more often than not come from an imbalance of information. People (or the market) could make better decisions with all information being accessible at the time of the decision. But all too often one side has more information than the other. Giving this side an edge.
> In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.
In capitalism it is basically the same as long as you can get away with it. I know it isn't a popular opinion, but without regulation capitalism is in now way better than other systems.
Their excesses would all need to be reigned in. Because no unregulated system would be acting in the common good. The system may be organized in a way to slightly enable more or less perdonsl freedom. Or more or less societal freedom. But in the end - for average Joe - uncontrolled capitalism boils down to the working and living conditions of the early industrialisation or (in case of socialism) towards the living and working conditions of late soviet times.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#17Well if the suspect was wrongly accused, they'd have to reimburse the damages. Does the FBI have a budget for such things? Does it involve extra paperwork if it passes a certain threshold? Is the issue here profiling of the demographic or the risk ( in terms of cost ).
We have cases of just regular-ass police in the US breaking through the door, shooting the family dog and dragging people out in their underwear.
Wrong guy? Whoops. Sorry.
No reimbursement.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.
What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton
As much as I agree with your sentiment, I think you could just as easily quote from the first paragraph of the linked Wikipedia article to find a counter point to your (seemingly) rhetoric question:
> Walton cofounded the Children's Scholarship Fund, providing tuition scholarships for disadvantaged youth.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#19America is much more racist than you think, and if you don't think so, you should probably talk to more POC.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#20Just as light bends under the influence of gravity....Looks like rule of law also bends under the influence of capitalism...
In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.
[deleted]