What rights does Bezos have that you do not?If you think you and I have the same rights as Bezos, I’ve got a bridge I’ll sell you real cheap.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What rights does Bezos have that you do not?If you think you and I have the same rights as Bezos, I’ve got a bridge I’ll sell you real cheap.
He can get away with murder, let alone not paying taxes.What rights does Bezos have that you do not?
Yeah we want cops to continue killing people because that prevents crime.
Police shouldn’t be able to be sued for doing their job, regardless of how they do it.Ok. How's that a bad thing? Seems like a reasonable check on unreasonable state power
You mean like big pharma, big hospitals, and doctors?Police shouldn’t be able to be sued for doing their job, regardless of how they do it.
You mean like big pharma, big hospitals, and doctors?
I've been very adamant in opposing the trend to privatize public risk (primarily efforts to force people to get insurance - car insurance, health insurance, gun owner insurance, etc ....). But I don't necessarily have a problem with this issue. If a city wants a band of violent goons for their police, such that it puts them at greater risk of being sued, and subsequently causes their insurance rates to go up. Ok. How's that a bad thing? Seems like a reasonable check on unreasonable state power.
I’m going to have to get busy writing those history books. Ones that show Deterrence worked every time. If that was the case, World War One and Two would never have happened. But hey, we can look at crime alone. And if Deterrence worked, then Prohibition would still be the law of the land wouldn’t it?
You are arguing that no matter the cost, we must do this. Then how much are you willing to pay in taxes? Because all of this stuff cost a ton of money. Let me guess, nothing. You just want to shift the money from a sector you don’t agree with. Imagining that billions of dollars will appear like magic when you shut down whatever other programs you want to.
California, we could shift the money from Wildfire protections. Let the state burn.
A few million dollars is shifted, and nothing changes, because that few million wouldn’t even be enough to house more criminals, because they don’t have the prisons now to house all they want to.
It isn’t one thing. It’s never one thing. You can’t just say we need more cops and that will solve the problem. Because then you have at most the revolving door you will moan about how criminals are released almost immediately. Why? Because we don’t have enough jail space. So we need more jails to hold the accused crooks. Before their trials. Great. Where will we get the billions we need to build new jails? Then we need more prisons. A fifteen hundred bed prison will cost another half a billion. And it will take a decade to build because we have to deal with lawsuits from all those good conservative people who don’t want a prison in their back yards.
And the Democrats are just as bad there. I know the story of Ted Kennedy and the wind farm. Enough said.
So in a decade or so, we will be able to house another fifteen hundred convicted criminals. What do we do with them otherwise?
And if deterrence was the answer, the idiot Sheriff and his tent city jail would have cut crime dramatically. It never dropped other than a tiny little blip. Albuquerque remained about the same crime wise.
But that is what happens. So if we can’t house everyone we want to, we have to pick and choose.
Now, the obvious answer is to figure out how to choose. You want them all locked up. We can’t. We don’t have the facilities. So who gets locked up? Murderers? Kidnappers? Rapists, Armed Robbers? Drug Dealers? All felons, and all serious criminals. Now, we get down to the misdemeanors. Well shit, we don’t have much space left for them. I guess we could turn a couple drug dealers and armed robbers loose.
You are treating this like that idiotic joke. We can keep twice the canaries in the truck if we keep half of them flying.
You don’t answer the question. Where do we keep these criminals you are determined to lock up? You don’t answer the question because all you want to focus on is the first phase. The cops on the street. The cops don’t want deterrence.
A city in California wanted to discuss their police policies and practices. They hired an expert. I know the fellow. He has 30 years experience in Prisons, including being a warden of a prison. The city had riots about every day in jail. He helped them get those down. Riots are bad for the prisoners, and worse for the guards. Because the guards get hurt, or killed, or are taken hostage.
Then it was policing. My friend got the cops to open a sub station in a strip mall which was high crime. Sure enough, crime dropped. And the cops hated it. They hated hanging around, they detested walking the beat in the surrounding neighborhood. They wanted to chase people, and catch people. So the substation was shut down after a year, and crime skyrocketed again.
Tell the cops to go back to walking a beat. They’ll quit.
Around me, the highest paid cops are the State Police and the Port Authority Police. A lot of cops try and get on at the Port Authority. Most of them quit within two years. It’s boring. Nothing but reports and checking ID cards. Accident reports, injury reports, and all that. It’s boring. And they crave the action. You can argue that they are deterring crime, but they don’t want that. They want to chase people.
Those gung-ho cops are the problem. They don’t show restraint when using force, and they get the department sued. They get cases thrown out for abuse and brutality. They get the criminal free. They get bad press for the department, and they get their fellow officers in trouble.
The reforms driven by the Insurance Companies is to get rid of those gung ho types. Get rid of them, and change the policies to reflect a more common sense approach.
St. Ann as I said in the OP, has enacted these reforms reluctantly. They have a lot fewer arrests, but the crime rate remains the same. No uptick in violent crime. None.
Reform means looking at alternatives, and finding ways to do the job better.
The cops who are quitting, are probably those violent cops who get the departments sued. The ones who won’t learn and won’t do the job the way it is supposed to be done.
The cops that are quitting are the ones that want to do the job, but are handcuffed by their superiors from doing it.
Are you saying he's murdered someone??He can get away with murder, let alone not paying taxes.
How would I know?Are you saying he's murdered someone??
Who equated big with evil?I'm not sure why people equate big with evil. I want my pharmaceutical companies to be big.
Big pharmaceutical companies have sufficient funding for research. Modern medicines can cost hundreds of millions to develop. Big companies can hire the best scientists and have the best research facilities. There's a reason why great breakthroughs in modern medicine don't come out of a country doctor's office.
I want my hospitals to be big. A large, well-funded hospital will have all the equipment and specialists required to treat my whatever condition I may develop, no matter how rare.
As for big doctors? Well, I am agnostic to the physical size of my doctor. Short, tall, fat, or thin ... I don't care.
It's always been that way. Police departments evolve. You can't be in a conversation with old sergeants without hearing, "Back in my day ... we used to ...".
But, since policing has existed, there has always been a superior telling the cop how to do his job.
Police shouldn’t be able to be sued for doing their job, regardless of how they do it.
I don’t believe in Rights. Definitely not for criminals.Ok. What penalties should exist when the police violate the Rights enumerated under the Constitution
You claimed Jeff Bezos has more rights than the rest of us. In particular, you said he "can get away with murder*. Why?How would I know?
It's a small town that got rid of the police force 11 years ago. Mayfood also fired most of their employees. They use LA County now.For a long time police departments have resisted public pressure and even legislative efforts to drive reform. Now the reform is happening. But not because of public perceptions or pressure from special interest groups. Not because of community organizers or BLM. It is because of money. Specifically. Insurance.
The name of the game is evolve, adapt, or die. And cities which don’t evolve and adapt. Are losing their cops.
Southern California town disbands police force after 86 years
Southern California town disbands police force after 86 yearswww.mercurynews.com
Yes. That is an old news story. But it was mentioned in the article posted above as an early example of insurance driving changes.
The cities and counties have a choice. Change the way you do the policing. Or lose the cops.
The times are changing. And it seems the Police Departments are changing too. Not because of threats to their safety. But to the bottom line.
The St. Ann police department as one example mentioned in the article. Resisted and rejected demands from community activists. Told the police reform crowd to pound sand. Then the Insurance Company told them that the rates were going way up if they didn’t knock it off. The Chief was given a choice. Lose ten officers to afford the insurance. Or change. Change while unpleasant was a lot better than stubbornly losing nearly a quarter of his police force.
They're not dictating anything. They're just offering insurance coverage. Take it or leave it.It's a bad thing because then you have insurance companies dictating how police can or can't do their jobs, and that puts the lives of officers at risk.