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

FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 393 posts

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#91

Post by eesmith »

settrans wrote: post #21
eesmith wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

That's obviously not how property rights work. Sam Walton was entitled to bequeath his wealth to his heirs however he saw fit, subject to any applicable estate and inheritance taxes.

The claim is that in capitalism "you become rich by providing value to other people."

John T. Walton became rich through inheritance.

Ergo, there are ways of getting rich other than providing value.

Ergo, looking at someone who is rich doesn't tell you that they provided value.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#92

Post by [deleted] »

theshrike79 wrote: post #17
alephnan wrote: post #11

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 ).

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.

[deleted]

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#93

Post by eesmith »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #27
eesmith wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

Kids have obvious value to their parents. That’s like one of the most basic evolutionary instincts.

Sure. But then you have to argue that John T. Walton provided $18 billion of value to his parents.

And if Sam Walton were taxed at 100% for all wealth over $100 million, so John Walton were only worth $20 million, then would John have provided less value to his parents?

My parents spend several $100,000 on my upbringing. Does that represent my value to my parents?

The children from the world's poorest families also provide value to their parents.

From this I conclude that "obvious value" of evolution and capitalism's "monetary value" aren't the same.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#94

Post by tomohawk »

What's actually disturbing is that more than 90% of the time this would be a "no knock" raid with paramiliterized police smashinng down the door, tossing in flash-bang grenades - the works. No knock should be reserved for extreme situations, not the norm.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#95

Post by aliswe »

_Nat_ wrote: post #63

> "I can tell you that is not protocol. The problem is there are two justice systems: 1 for poor people and minorities and 1 for rich people and generally white people. You see it when you are one of the few black agents. Everyone is not equal." Was " Tarek Abou-Khatwa " not a minority? [The surname " Abou " appears to be most commonly associated with either Niger or Egypt]( https://forebears.io/surnames/abou ), whil…

Wait, no ... Abou in arabic means "father of ...", so it's in a possessive construct. It needs the other word to make sense. The "ou" is just an approximation, other spellings include Abo, Abu, Aboo, Bou, Ba ...

Whole of North Africa is filled to the brim with Abou-xyz family names, even first names (Abu Madyan "Boumedienne" in Algeria for example) and also many many such names in the other parts of the arab world.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#96

Post by jokethrowaway »

lordnacho wrote: post #34
seibelj wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

It's a common refrain that people get rich by providing value to others, and I used to think that way as well. Unfortunately I don't think it really stands scrutiny. First of all, there's no proper idea of what value is. It's a super deep conversation so I'll just leave that headline for now. Second, even without a clear explanation of what value is, we can distinguish between value created and value captured. You ca…

Value is a self defining concept. It's what an individual want.

The value of a society is the weighted sum of values based on individual power.

Amazon is creating a lot of small value to a lot of people by delivering goods next day.

People on wall street are creating a lot of value for wealthy and powerful people.

An engineer can automate a lot of value creation that was previously done by a large number of people, allowing companies to have a shot at making a lot of money, hence why they're paid more.

Some of those powerful and wealthy people got rich by providing value, some of them got rich by exploiting the government's centralised power, its corruption and the possibility of stealing value from all the taxpayers.

A scam is a crime on par with stealing or charging taxes. Stealing doesn't create value, it just transfer wealth.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#97

Post by 454544545 »

_Nat_ wrote: post #63

> "I can tell you that is not protocol. The problem is there are two justice systems: 1 for poor people and minorities and 1 for rich people and generally white people. You see it when you are one of the few black agents. Everyone is not equal." Was " Tarek Abou-Khatwa " not a minority? [The surname " Abou " appears to be most commonly associated with either Niger or Egypt]( https://forebears.io/surnames/abou ), whil…

No post body was provided.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#98

Post by praptak »

croes wrote: post #67
watwut wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very same people who are pointing out this were complaining about aggressive police tactic for years. It is not instead.

So why not use the same tactics for both, rich and poor? Or is violence reserved for poorer people?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#99

Post by jokethrowaway »

drekipus wrote: post #44
sdoering wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. And it should work in tandem with whatever social system that's set up, (justice, laws, morals, ethics, etc) Pyramid schemes steal a great amount of wealth, and should be regulated. Regulated capitalism is the good thing. The thing is, pyramid schemes aren't run by the state (or shouldn't be) and you don't have a gun to your head forcing you to p…

I argue there is no need for regulation and we just need pure capitalism.

Without a government, companies made of people with guns would emerge punishing scammers and criminals in general, advising companies and reputation systems would emerge protecting people from scams.

Due to the nature of entrepreneurship, all these companies could be held in check by competitors. Without regulation slowing down new competitors, if a cartel emerges, there would be a great incentive for a better alternative coming up and making money.

You may argue the systems of companies providing these services would make a sort of government - and you would be right. It would just be more decentralised and therefore there would be less space for corruption. You also wouldn't force people to pay you a part of their profit or they go to jail and you wouldn't force people to avoid certain substances or limit what activities thay may be doing.

You can at best say: "If you don't pay a protecion agency, you won't have protection against criminals / foreign invaders", "You may take this drug but this recommendation company suggest it's bad for you".

I'd rather live in a free society, a society where I'm free to even damage myself, than in the regulated prison we live in today.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#100

Post by Retric »

QuietCF wrote: post #8
imgabe wrote: post #6

Earlier 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".

What’s the difference? What would the implication be of „don’t knock down doors in affluent neighborhoods“?

Presumably if they avoided kicking down doors in a rich part of Dallas Texas or something. This is on that upper 0.01% of politically connected areas at the national/international level and perhaps top 1% of wealthy areas. Describing it as a wealthy area isn’t wrong, but that not why it’s unusual.
Post reply on HN