Quoted post unavailable.
run for office, you seem to know what to do
FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
361–370 of 393 posts
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let me break down how I read it. This is what the person was replying to, he quoted it so will I: > Again: you can't get white activist gun owners to defend a licensed gun owner who was surprised and shot in his own home by police executing a no-knock warrant that wasn't for him. Which is first, an absolute, and absolutes are rarely true. Second, you said defend. "...you can't get white activist gun owners to defe…
> It sounds like you might want to slow down a bit and give people the benefit of the doubt, maybe take the time to read and understand what people write. I have the same affliction myself sometimes. Thanks for the advice, but I re-read everything and verified that I understood. It's possible that we just disagree, or maybe your quoted comment removes all context from the discussion. > Did you do any of those things,…
Hah, good point, it was not. I told you I have that affliction sometimes as well. That's the problem when a discussion becomes emotional, it usually ceases to be a discussion.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#363Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#364Maybe we should be asking why they are so eager to break down other people's doors, instead of harassing them for not breaking down just this one.
I get why the outrage is here, but we seem to be in a race to the bottom. Instead of getting cops not to kick in front doors, make sure they do it to rich people too? Or maybe I've lost the plot.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Liberals are invested in social theories that reject the importance of fathers in socializing boys? In academia, public policy, and political messaging, yes. With a few exceptions. > Are you sure you're not getting this stuff from Youtube, and kind of winding yourself up? I don’t watch YouTube. It doesn’t even really come up in right-wing media, because much of the Trump right is itself a product of the post-family…
This just isn't persuasive. You can find support for any wacky idea "in academia", at any end of the political spectrum --- I don't go around saying that conservatives are deeply invested in the idea of a Catholic Integralist theocracy, and so I object to the idea that you get to drag out someone's Masters in Tumblr Theory graduate thesis to win arguments. Meanwhile: in public policy? In political messaging? Support…
I think they are so afraid of being accused of "trash-talking single moms," or alienating the academics and activists, that they won't advocate in the culture and politics for two-parent families. The functional result is similar: When was the last time you heard a Democrat talking about the importance of two-parent households? What major Democrat-aligned think tank or advocacy organization is pushing policies to promote two-parent households and decrease out-of-wedlock child births? Where are the Hollywood movies addressing the social upheaval caused by divorce?
> Just for the sake of clarity, and to keep the discussion on the tracks, I'm dialing up my rhetoric: I think these beliefs you have about "liberals" are the outcome of Internet poisoning, not a reflection of reality.
My problem is that the right-wing outrage bait originates where I am: the high school I attended, the law school I attended, my kids's school, etc. On this particular issue, I got shouted down on my high school's facebook page for pointing out that poverty rates are vastly lower among two-parent families. Do those folks represent the liberal mainstream? I think that's besides the point. If those folks shout down enough people, everyone else will stick to points that don't incur their wrath.
> Again: the best proxy we have for measuring social liberalism is educational attainment. People with college degress --- I'm not valorizing them, I didn't go, I think college is an overrated luxury good --- are much more likely to have stable single-parent homes that people without; to the extent that this "nuclear family" gap exists, it's "conservative" voters who are likely to be on the single-parent end of it.
This is true, but I draw the opposite conclusion from it. Economic success today is strongly tied to success in academic institutions. People with high levels of social capital go to those institutions, learn a bunch of wacky ideas, but live in their own lives the way people with their class always have. But everyone else downstream suffers the consequences. E.g. corporate lawyer posts "sex work is work" but she doesn't mean it for her kid. And she doesn't live in a community where being pressured into sex work is a real threat facing young women. But destroying that taboo has consequences that flow down into lower class communities where those pressures do exist.
Meanwhile, those downstream communities have less ability to resist harmful cultural changes. They're not going to college where they learn what to say while being able to observe that the successful people are doing. They often lack the social capital that insulates them from the broader culture. The social institutions they relied on to transmit values and enforce norms, like churches, have often been weakened by decades of attacks. Folks in those communities will get divorced and have kids out of wedlock--because the taboos have been destroyed in the broader culture--but they'll unsurprisingly be mad about the consequences.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re dead you don’t get to make decisions anymore. These sorts of arguments would have more weight if the parents actually transferred the wealth earlier than their death or shortly before it, but they want to retain all the power that comes with that capital and then pick the winners in the next round of the economy by bequeathing it to their children. If we want any sort of system even approaching a meritocrac…
if the "after death" silliness is your main concern here, that seems easy to satisfy with the abstraction of a will or trust that is set up before death. personally I find it pretty reasonable that I get to decide who gets the lion's share of assets I have worked for my whole life. at the same time, it seems bad when enormous amounts of wealth are passed down over generations (and having known a couple people in this…
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they should experience the MORE legal risk for a trespass and property damage that I do. You seem to be arguing that they should still have qualified immunity, but maybe not so much of it, if I'm understanding?
I guess I feel like there are pretty much no circumstances in which I would need to break down a door. Whereas police officers are likely to find themselves in circumstances where breaking down a door is legitimately the right thing to do quite a bit more often. So perhaps some allowance for that is merited. I'd like to live in a world where lawsuits aren't necessary to achieve justice, except in extreme cases.
Then they execute the warrant on the wrong address.
Why should a cop enjoy immunity for an unjustified felony trespass and property destruction just because they were justified at another address? That's the kind of problem we have now. It's not that cops can't get a warrant for what they do. It's that they are not punished for the stuff they do without a warrant, that you and I would (and rightly should) be punished for.
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#368Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
Begs the question: If you can be startled away by the someone breaking into your home and you reach for you gun and are shot dead by the police, do you really have the right to bear arms? I would really love to see some laws that allow us to defend ourselves against police. If they decide to just beat my ass, they can and I can't defend myself. WTF!?
The declaration of independence can be interpreted to mean that the government forfeits its legitimacy when it violates anyone's human rights. If the declaration of independence is considered legally binding then theoretically you could have a basis in law for fighting back against the police when they exceed their remit. I'm no lawyer but I remember something similar being brought up in the courtroom scene in the mo…
Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'
#370Let'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…
You'd think the NRA would be all over this: a legal gun owner killed in his home by police? Nope In the gun community the NRA is generally seen has having failed gun owners. There are many cases similar to Amir Locke's. One in particular is Duncan Lemp.
NRA accomplished some wicked and absurd goals (one might not think it possible if it hadn't already happened) and I think by proxy accomplished a huge one through Justice Scalia which significantly, drastically and fundamentally changed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment from a selfless right to stand guard against tyranny to an intensely and grotesquely selfish right to legally murder in defense of trivial things such as property and indulgences such as pride. This was illegal, unconstitutional, and a massive overreach by Scalia, because obviously he undermined the Founders' expressed requirement for a Constitutional convention and 2/3rds both houses of Congress or of State legislatures to change the Constitution. That this defacement of the Constitution occurred in the way that it did, the 2nd was vandalized without altering the literal words, is interesting, but I believe it only a matter of time before parts of DC v Heller (2008) are overturned for lack of accuracy, overreach, and flippantly reversing a hundred plus years of court precedent with garbage reasoning. Scalia claims knowledge of what most Americans believe, without any support or any evidence whatsoever, which is what he bases his argument and ruling that the right of self-defense is inclusive in the 2nd (a small part of the decision which was entirely skewed to the rest and the case before the Court).
First of all, even one Supreme Court Justice claiming to know what all Americans think and basing decisions on that... is crazy, so he was probably a little senile by then. But I think Scalia knew (or knew once) and we also know from the minutes of the Constitutional Convention that the Founders debated including self-defense in the 2nd and intentionally left it out, and we also know that the 2nd specifically concerns militia (to guard against any tyranny from a professional military) and not a personal right to firearms, which it never meant until the NRA made up that it did and ran propaganda to manipulate others into believing what they, really, just invented, which itself is merely a lie. So the NRA succeeded in campaigns they ran, I think starting in the early 1900s and onwards to try to get Americans to believe the 2nd Amendment meant self-defense and guaranteed it.
But by 2008, contrary to Scalia's claimed omnipotence, I suspect most Americans were far better educated and aware of, at least, the fact that that the NRA's propaganda regarding their claims the right of self-defense was guaranteed by 2nd, was false, and knew and know that the right of self-defense is a natural right that would be redundant to include in the Bill of Rights, and is far older than the 2nd, which concerns militia. Personal gun ownership, right to carry permits, and all other ownership of guns beyond beyond militia (hunting, collecting, engineering & manufacturing, etc.) is really covered by the 10th Amendment. I don't know why the NRA, and everyone that listened to them, got hung up on the 2nd, and obsessively tried to, in large part successfully, mindcontrol Americans into believing literal BS and the NRA's wet dream, which of course could only have led to a needless increase in gun deaths since 2008.
Sure the close knit and loving gun community blames the NRA when it's gun owners that failed America by being duped by the NRA into shirking their 2nd Amendment duties, and falling down on the job by not being well-regulated militia, but instead playing with guns, or leaving guns unsecured resulting in tragedy, or being vigilantes, or intentionally placing themselves where they might get antagonized to use lethal force when such situations could easily have been avoided.