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

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

capitolhillautonomous.zone

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 920 posts

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#551

Post by remarkEon »

hellomyguys wrote: post #506
remarkEon wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>give more financial support to address homelessness, mental health, and domestic violence. is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this poll, which should be obvious. I'm not ignoring anything. Cops respond to a variety of calls, all the time ... because there simply are not enough of them to have this "specialized" force you think would solve all of these problems. The grand irony of all of this is that the defunding of…

>Cops respond to a variety of calls, all the time ... because there simply are not enough of them to have this "specialized" force you think would solve all of these problems. This makes no sense.

You ever put a duty roster together? Done a Troops to Task analysis? If you wanted to have separate divisions that all do only one thing you need more troops. If you spread the workload around you can get by with fewer but the service level probably suffers. It's that simple. So sometimes you do domestic calls, next rotation you're on traffic or patrol. If you want specialized units, which to me does sound smart and does sound like an idea worth exploring, you need more officers. Maybe it's possible to save some money here (I imagine there'd be some salary disparity depending on which specialization you choose). Ironically, again, this would make the police more like the military - not less. The military already has specialized branches that have categories of doctrinal tasks they are responsible for (artillery vs infantry, armor vs cavalry ... and in this example patrol vs traffic).

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#552

Post by hsod »

hoten wrote: post #321
joshuamorton wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been lots of mid-sized political wins for these protests. Breanna's law, Minneapolis defunding it's police, etc. It's sustained distributed action, and some of it is not real (the NYC chokehold ban), but there's still real stuff happening.

None of that is a result of CHAZ.

seattle schools has disaffiliated with SPD in large part due to the protests that led up to CHAZ

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#553

Post by umvi »

craftinator wrote: post #400
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole 'fully automatic rifle' is such a nothing burger anyway. M4s and M16s aren't controllable on fully automatic at anything over 10m. Watch modern combat footage of any trained unit, and I guarantee you'll see them using semi auto. My point? Semi auto AR-15s are every bit as effective and deadly as their fully automatic military counterparts. Whether civilians should have such weapons is another discussion.

To add to this, having had quite of bit of firearms experience both semi and auto, the real limiting factors are, as mentioned, controllability and ammo. With a 30 round mag and a cyclic rate of 700 rounds per minute (AR-15 mods run 700-1000 RPM), you get a little over 2 seconds of trigger time. That assumes you don't experience a jam, which is very likely with an AR-15 variant modified for automatic fire, and becaus…

> I'd be wayyyyy less concerned than if they were using semi automatic.

In general, yes. To play devil's advocate though, accuracy/controllability is not really needed if your goal is just to spray as much lead as possible into a densely crowded area from, say, a hotel room above.

Such domestic terrorist events are extremely rare, but I would guess in these specific cases where the goal is to spray as many bullets per second as possible into a crowd, full auto + large magazine is going to kill more people than semi auto.

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#554

Post by dragonwriter »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #430
dragonwriter wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IANAL but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to use eminent domain to confiscate the homes of citizens based on their race Good thing I never suggested that. Gentrification has a racial dimension because race correlates with economics, but it simply is the rich displacing the poor in a particular region; if you take housing units by eminent domain and establish a process for renting them out as public housing that doesn'…

I figured you would take that tack. In my defense, the term often does refer to whites specifically. In either case, however, I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race), but again, IANAL and would be very interested in hear…

> I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race),

You are incorrect. Laws may both explicitly (or otherwise intentionally) target race and may disproportionately impact race without explicit targeting.

Laws doing the former are subject to “strict scrutiny”: the discrimination must be the least invasive means of achieving a compelling government interest. The latter isn't prohibited at all, though it can be evidence of discriminatory intent. (You may be thinking of employment law, where disparate impact is generally prohibited discrimination, unless closely tailored to a specific legitimate non-discriminatory business need.)

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause for a discussion, especially the section under “tiered scrutiny” and “disparate impact”.

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#555

Post by dehrmann »

aporetics wrote: post #391
Finnucane wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every generation needs a Woodstock A massively failed capitalist project that leaves behind an enormous mess?

The organizers of Woodstock knew they weren’t going to profit, and they did it anyway. They also knew that crowd control was going to be a problem; instead of hiring police, they brought in people from a commune who were used to doing crowd control for large peaceful gatherings.

Then there was Altamont.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert#Security

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#556

Post by bowmessage »

undersuit wrote: post #466
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the right, I am seeing: - It's called Antifastan - Warlord Raz is prone to violent outbursts, and is an AirBnb Superhost. - There are open carries with automatic rifles. They get the most respect. - Laughing out loud at an attempt to create a vegetable garden. Didn't appear promising. - Laughing harder at a cry for 'please send vegan meats and soy products, the homeless took all the food!' My thinking is, the trut…

I hate the laughter at the vegetable garden. Oh lets mock people for planting what could be food where it used to a a useless piece of turf. We shouldn't be mocking them we should be following their example across the country.

It wasn't a useless piece of turf, it was a park that the residents of the neighborhood, myself included, used to be able to enjoy. Now we can't, because hundreds are camping on the area.

I am all for their cause, but I feel like the methodology of 'camping in a park' is not the right way to enact civic change at a policy level.

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#557

Post by craftinator »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #410
craftinator wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other issue I've noticed with the less-than-lethal ordnance use is that in order to be non-lethal, they need to be used according to manufacturer guidelines. I've used rubber coated bullets, bean-bag guns, and flashbangs. The police are not using them according to non-lethal guidelines. Example: Rubber coated bullets have explicit instructions to be aimed at shin height or below. This is because everything below…

I imagine its because all their other training, all their range practice, is to shoot at center of mass three times in a burst. Hard to change in the heat of the riot.

That's fair, and understandable. But at the same time, I don't think it absolves them of misconduct. "I'm used to shooting at the body and the head, so I shot the protesters in the body and the head because I panicked" doesn't really hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I know in the military, that kind of excuse would be noted in the court martial paperwork, but not have any impact on judgement or sentencing.

If they choose to use these weapons and tactics, they are responsible for how they use them. In a situation where the officers are in danger of physical harm, they are fully within their rights to go against usage policies to protect themselves. But in the vast majority I've seen, these officers have been shooting at unarmed protesters, not rioting mobs. It's simply illegal, a violation of the Constitution, and a chargeable offense.

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#558

Post by throwaway894345 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #554
throwaway894345 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figured you would take that tack. In my defense, the term often does refer to whites specifically. In either case, however, I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race), but again, IANAL and would be very interested in hear…

> I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race), You are incorrect. Laws may both explicitly (or otherwise intentionally) target race and may disproportionately impact race without explicit targeting. Laws doing the former are…

Interesting and disappointing. Thanks for the correction.

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#559

Post by armada651 »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #480
zeveb wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was all set to post a comment about how I dream of an honestly fair and balanced news channel, unlike Fox, CNN or MSNBC. I was going to post some outrageous headlines from each site right now. Surprisingly, the front page of foxnews.com was pretty sane and sober, remarkably so — and by far better than cnn.com or msnbc.com. I am honestly stunned. I really expected Fox News to be as much of a dumpster fire as CNN or…

You'll never see a fully "fair" news channel, for two reasons: - Humans will bring their implicit biases to any reporting they do; I feel like it's better for the reader to make implicit biases explicit, and call out where the writer feels uncomfortable. - If you try to cut humans out of the loop and replace them with algorithms, you're creating two problems: algorithms will have implicit biases from their creators,…

You can make a fair news channel if you give a news channel the right incentives. You need to create a news outlet where biased reporting is an actual scandal.

The problem in the US is that news outlets are expected to be biased and so they take full advantage of that to make their news more entertaining.

These news channels are driven by add revenue. And divisive, incendiary reporting is the best way to get people to keep watching.

Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

#560

Post by dragonwriter »

remarkEon wrote: post #551
hellomyguys wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cops respond to a variety of calls, all the time ... because there simply are not enough of them to have this "specialized" force you think would solve all of these problems. This makes no sense.

You ever put a duty roster together? Done a Troops to Task analysis? If you wanted to have separate divisions that all do only one thing you need more troops. If you spread the workload around you can get by with fewer but the service level probably suffers. It's that simple. So sometimes you do domestic calls, next rotation you're on traffic or patrol. If you want specialized units, which to me does sound smart and…

> If you wanted to have separate divisions that all do only one thing you need more troops.

This assumes that generalists are equally effective at all tasks as specialists. Well, as a generality; in the specific case of all-purpose use of police vs appropriate use of other community services, it actually involves the assumption that specialists in the application of violence to achieve compliance are as effective in specialists in tasks unrelated to application of violence in those non-violent tasks.

In technology, if senior IT management decided they could reduce staff by having network installation specialists, with little to no additional training, cover application development, QA, requirements analysis, SRE, DBA, desktop support, and project management tasks instead of having specialists in each of those domains, they'd rightly be viewed as insane. But that's, broadly, what local governments have done with city services, with cops in the role of the network installers.

Post reply on HN