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

311–320 of 393 posts

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

#311

Post by leetcrew »

sdoering wrote: post #16
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.

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…

> 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.

it would be more convincing if you could come up with counterexamples that aren't illegal.

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

#312

Post by [deleted] »

pessimizer wrote: post #266
throwaway040922 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You said "This kind of violence affects everyone" and this is disingenuous when we look at the ratio of black vs white being murdered by police. If you want to argue that this kind of violence affects certain races more, that's fine. But why downplay the fact that it affects all races? The percentages are higher for Black Americans, but White Americans still make up the majority of people shot by police[1]. If peop…

> If people actually cared about creating a broad coalition to address this, they would want to highlight both facts, not hide the latter fact. People fighting for black lives aren't hiding bad things that happen to white people. The reason Duncan Lemp doesn't have posters up about him isn't because black activists against police violence haven't fought for him, it's because both black and white activists against pol…

[deleted]

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

#313

Post by chipsa »

HideousKojima wrote: post #251
jmyeet wrote: post #178

Let's compare this experience to that of Amir Locke [1]. To summarize: the Minneapolis PD was executing a no-knock warrant in a homicide investigation. Locke was not the target of the warrant but was sleeping on the couch. He was licensed for the firearm and it was completely legal. When startled awake, he reached for his gun (natural reaction) and the police shot and killed him. You'd think the NRA would be all over…

>Let's also compare to Kyle Rittenhouse. Attorneys wanted to use the fact that one of his victims was a sex offender as a defense [3]. There are two possibilities here: >1. Rittenhouse didn't know of this, in which case it's immaterial; and >2. Rittenhouse knew, in which case this was a targeted killing (ie murder). >No one is arguing Rittenhouse knew. The whole point here is post facto justification. This is for the…

> he would have had to additionally prove in court that he attempted to retreat in order for his shooting to be considered self-defense

I mean, he would have been able to, since we have video of the time period leading up to the shooting, where he's running away from Rosenbaum before he turns around right before the shooting, and the prosecution witness testified Rosenbaum appeared to be trying to take the rifle.

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

#314

Post by zionic »

jmyeet wrote: post #178

Let's compare this experience to that of Amir Locke [1]. To summarize: the Minneapolis PD was executing a no-knock warrant in a homicide investigation. Locke was not the target of the warrant but was sleeping on the couch. He was licensed for the firearm and it was completely legal. When startled awake, he reached for his gun (natural reaction) and the police shot and killed him. You'd think the NRA would be all over…

The rittenhouse bit is entirely irrelevant. The sex offender you're discussing is on video, from multiple angles, attacking him. He's also on video acting like an unhinged lunatic prior to the altercation. (He's a white dude at a BLM protest shouting the N word at another white person... uh ok).

You can't threaten to kill someone then violently attack them and expect them not to defend themselves.

If you're this woefully uninformed about the rittenhouse situation, have you considered that your sources of information are misleading you?

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

jmyeet wrote: post #281
ght wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are going to bring into account how many African-Americans are being killed by police we need to also bring into account the FBI's violent crime statistics. Blacks made up 56% of known murder offenders. While European Whites were 28% of known murder offenders while making up 60-65% of the population. Remember, African-Americans are only 11% of the population. That is a huge discrepancy that needs to be brought…

I'm going to assume good intent here and say you've been sucked into some white supremacist propaganda. This falls under the umbrella of "1350" [1]: > The number 13 used in conjunction with either the number 52 or the number 90 is a shorthand reference to racist propaganda claims by white supremacists against African-Americans to depict them as savage and criminal in nature. If anything, it's evidence of overpolicing…

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by Retric »

leetcrew wrote: post #308
Retric wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value isn’t what people want. People want drinking water more than just about anything else, but that’s cheap to provide so the cost stays low. Gold on the other hand is rarely something people consider or want, but it’s rare therefore it has high material value.

the price of water isn't really subject to market forces though; it's usually provided by a regulated utility or directly by the government. based on the existence of lawns in arid places, I'd argue water is mispriced. in this particular case, it seems better than the alternative where poor people can't afford drinking water.

Water isn’t always provided by a regulated utility especially historically.

It’s never been particularly expensive compared to gold, silver, etc.

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

#317

Post by zionic »

Spivak wrote: post #304
bavell wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a riot, not a protest. The kid was an idiot for bringing a firearm, just like the idiots in the mob who chased a kid with a firearm.

Fine, sure. Nothing about my point changes though. Legal or not bringing a weapon to a riot...

>Legal or not bringing a weapon to a riot...

What's your point exactly? If more people had done so there wouldn't be a riot. Honestly it's a condemnation of our degraded society that so few show up to defend our cities and towns from this kind of mob violence.

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

#318

Post by alphabettsy »

screye wrote: post #258
jmyeet wrote: post #178

Let's compare this experience to that of Amir Locke [1]. To summarize: the Minneapolis PD was executing a no-knock warrant in a homicide investigation. Locke was not the target of the warrant but was sleeping on the couch. He was licensed for the firearm and it was completely legal. When startled awake, he reached for his gun (natural reaction) and the police shot and killed him. You'd think the NRA would be all over…

> is for the court of public opinion Agreed, > with an acquittal Disagree. It was the other way round for the Rittenhouse case. (I watched the entire stream. So for once, I can say I know about the case). Bringing their integrity into the conversation was a hail-mary play for conviction by the prosecutor, because they suspected they'd lose. The Rittenhouse trial had gone from a cut-n-dry innocence case to one that wa…

> the massive spike in homicides following police defunding

Where have the police been defunded? Where is the massive spike in homicides?

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

#319

Post by zionic »

bell-cot wrote: post #175
imgabe wrote: post #3

FYI the neighborhood is Kalorama in DC, where a lot of diplomats and high-level government officials live. Maybe the agents didn't want one of the neighbors to call the director of the FBI to have them chewed out for "making the neighborhood look bad", which is not an impossible thing to happen there considering who the neighbors are. I imagine if you're an FBI field agent, the last thing you want for your career is…

Worse - imagine you're an FBI field agent, and your "kick in the front door" operation turned into a "SS agents and FBI agents shooting each other" train wreck - because there was a Secret Service protection detail on the other side of that door, and an agent or few got a very fast judgement call wrong , in the heat of the moment. Or similar, with some VIP who's got trigger-happy private security - because he knows t…

The FBI wasn't reigned in after killing dozens of women and children in cold blood at Waco, I'm not sure anything will at this point.

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

#320

Post by marcosdumay »

whatshisface wrote: post #293
nootropicat wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes I never understood this tactic. If you really want citizen support (which is required), you need to show that all citizens are subject to this type of injustice. If leaders just say one group is affected and don't show that all citizens are affected, you won't get change as fast, if at all. It all makes sense if you start from a cynical assumption that the real point of most political activism is exclusively to…

Your drug legalization proposals might have the side effects of increasing the number of people who start taking those drugs. People respond to incentives and you can't both say that restrictions aren't making drugs harder to find and that they're driving addicts to dangerous substitutes.

Who knows? (Really, does anybody know?)

If you decriminalize, you do make drugs more approachable. You also make treatments more approachable, and health research actually possible.

Besides, there are other ways to fight the use of something than sending the police to lock people down with other addicts. And well, all that police involvement does put money on the drug sellers hands, to use on their marketing.

Overall, it seems that the highest damage (by orders of magnitude) those substances cause is due to the police involvement. So I'm quite for taking that involvement away. But there are other damages, and I have never seen anybody with a believable enough model of what will happen to those after drugs are legalized. (And, of course, it will certainly depend on all the details, so any "yes or no" answer is guaranteed to be bullshit.)

Post reply on HN