Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

Post by darpa_escapee » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 3:56 AM UTC

symlinkk wrote: post #104

darpa_escapee wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. I'm of the opinion that it's better for a criminal to walk free than for an innocent person to be punished or killed for something they have nothing to do with.

If criminals are walking free left and right, they will feel less afraid to commit more crimes, including murdering innocents.

Post by King-Aaron » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 4:06 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #76

School-Cotton wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t like the police any more than you do, but calling police presence in train stations “straight up fascist” cheapens the term. When you call every slightly authoritarian policy “straight up fascist”, nobody will take you seriously when you denounce actually fascist regimes.

Having police with drug dogs, posted at train stations to catch random people with personal quantities of drugs is straight up fascist in my opinion. Drug use crosses socioeconomic lines, yet drug dogs at train stations (targeted in the poorer suburbs too) ends up unfairly targeting poor people (who are often minorities), especially as wealthier people tend to drive rather than take public transport. Send some drug d…

Post by adjkant » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 4:15 AM UTC

linksnapzz wrote: post #81

ryanmonroe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it. Crime is up on the subway, so you think this is part of a politically motivated strategy to "[hold] back the police force from doing their jobs"? The article says they have a lot of vacancies. Maybe they can't find people who want the job? Maybe their budget for policeman salaries doesn't fare well compared to the area housing prices? I could think of quite a few possible reasons for a rise in crime b…

There’s no political group supporting these robbers Sure there are. I know how to easily identify them, too. If, perchance, one of the robbers is shot and killed while committing an armed robbery, look to see which groups are more concerned about punishing the shooter than blaming the criminal. Insofar as this is California, it will be a substantial list.

Post by wolco » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 4:27 AM UTC

darpa_escapee wrote: post #87

stickfigure wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. There can't be that many criminals. The steady-state equilibrium might be safer than the current regime, which is that criminals can assault (and kill) with little risk to themselves. Of course I'd like my chance of death-by-bullet to be zero. But for whatever re…

> I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. I'm of the opinion that it's better for a criminal to walk free than for an innocent person to be punished or killed for something they have nothing to do with.

Post by wolco » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 4:29 AM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #20

jeffdavis wrote: post #16

Maybe they should issue more concealed carry permits in bay area counties. It's wrong for the police to simultaneously neglect your protection and also prevent you from protecting yourself.

It's probably safer to just carry a little extra cash and pay off the robbers..