We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter. #InspireChangepic.twitter.com/ENWQP8A0sv
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Notice I said "so many" - I certainly didn't say 'all'. I said whittle down the figures, not eliminate them altogether. Remove the static.
Take care of the things that CAN be addressed by personal responsibility before trying to identify where the actual injustices are. Because it's impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff at this point.
As to your second point - distinguishing between 'America' and 'the free world' is either an inartfully stated point or a ****ing absurd one. If you believe the rest of the world is 'ginormously' more just than America, I simply don't know what to tell you.
Lax immigration policies compared to many European nations, massive geographic and cultural distinctions in comparison to other industrialized nations and significantly greater populations than anyone else in the running here all make the job of maintaining equity in the United States exponentially harder than most anywhere else. And yet the systems we have in place do a generally exceptional job of it.
Wanna work in the margins? Do that. But don't sit here and act like the United States has just as easy a task as Sweden (who won't let ANYONE move there if you don't have a damn doctorate or something - incredibly strict) and that places like German or the UK don't have problems of their own in their systems.
My comment about ginormous was in relation to incarceration rate. And that isn't just a product of America being tougher to manage. The prison industrial complex has boomed into an $80B industry. Costs are booming, people are rioting against the system, and despite all that investment do people feel exponentially safer? What is exceptional about it?
At what point do we realize that maybe we need to improve and that there are ideas elsewhere that could work. These systems may not be perfect but they are exponentially safer at a fraction of the police state we have. The US hands max sentencing out like candy while other nations look for alternatives... Fines, misdemeanors, diversion. Sorry, I just don't buy that you couldn't dramatically reduce incarceration while still maintaining a similar level of public safety. At some point we have to stop the nonsense idea that more people in prisons means we are getting tougher on crime. [Reply]
I missed that post. Twisted has been so fucking arrogant in this thread. Maybe confirm the race of the suspect before you make a smart ass post about it?
Thanks.
It was a joke, lil Scarface. Mocking those in this thread who seem to forgive some level of police violence if it's directed toward a black suspect as those people have a penchant for violence themselves.
For someone who doesn't want to compete, you sure seem insecure! [Reply]
You gonna try to argue that incarceration rates and immigration policy aren't related?
And yes, America imprisons a disproportionate number of non-violent offenders. And yes, that's largely driven by the war on drugs.
You can talk me into significant change in possession offenses and imprisonment. In fact, I believe Trump just put through something that does precisely that (and the same people who hate him couldn't give a fuck).
But if you're a drug dealer - get your ass in prison. Violent criminal - prison. If you're a white collar asshole who's committed a financial felony potential depriving innocent people of their livelihoods - fuck you, prison.
The majority of folks that are in prison deserve to be there. The stats bounce all over but there's little argument that the overwhelming majority of people in prison for drugs are there for aggravating circumstances, repeat offenses or distribution.
This "my uncle got caught smoking his first joint and went to jail for 4 years" stuff is just not something that happens. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
It was a joke, lil Scarface. Mocking those in this thread who seem to forgive some level of police violence if it's directed toward a black suspect as those people have a penchant for violence themselves.
For someone who doesn't want to compete, you sure seem insecure!
Bullshit.
Not remotely true. I will condemn each and every wrongful killing equally. What I refuse to do is go with the narrative that blacks are being hunted by cops and killed disproportionately.
I actually wouldn’t hurt you because I’m not a mean person. I would make you shit your pants and learn a lesson though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You gonna try to argue that incarceration rates and immigration policy aren't related?
And yes, America imprisons a disproportionate number of non-violent offenders. And yes, that's largely driven by the war on drugs.
You can talk me into significant change in possession offenses and imprisonment. In fact, I believe Trump just put through something that does precisely that (and the same people who hate him couldn't give a ****).
But if you're a drug dealer - get your ass in prison. Violent criminal - prison. If you're a white collar asshole who's committed a financial felony potential depriving innocent people of their livelihoods - **** you, prison.
The majority of folks that are in prison deserve to be there. The stats bounce all over but there's little argument that the overwhelming majority of people in prison for drugs are there for aggravating circumstances, repeat offenses or distribution.
This "my uncle got caught smoking his first joint and went to jail for 4 years" stuff is just not something that happens.
The drug war is a start and I've said before that Trump, for all his law and order bluster, does seem interested in addressing that. Is it tied to immigration policy, of course it is. But that's a blanket excuse. It doesn't explain enough the continued mass incarceration in many of these traditionally oppressed neighborhoods. And while a good % of prisoners are there for serious offenses it seriously undercounts the number who cycle in and out for small offenses.
But it's not just low level drug offenses. It's broken windows policing and intrusive measures like stop and frisk. It is the Pioli gum wrapper approach to law enforcement. We aren't just treating criminals like criminals, we're treating ordinary citizens minding their own business as criminals. And where do you think that repeat offender stuff starts? Is juvy really an ideal solution or are we just building a pipeline of future criminals by sending kids to Criminal training 101? If jails have horrendous recidivism rates, shouldn't we explore alternatives that might actually reduce likelihood of a repeat offense? How many of those repeat offenders had their life in crime start from an overpunishment for a small, minor nonviolent offense? Does the punishment really fit the crime or could many of these felonies be easily downgraded to fines or misdemeanors? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
It was a joke, lil Scarface. Mocking those in this thread who seem to forgive some level of police violence if it's directed toward a black suspect as those people have a penchant for violence themselves.
For someone who doesn't want to compete, you sure seem insecure!
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You don't think public defenders can seek to have bond lowered? It's routine. May take an extra day or two, but it gets done all the time. It's oftentimes negotiated outside of a hearing at all between the PD and the Prosecutor's office.
Expedited hearings are often set. And yes, all that stuff IS considered in a bond hearing. They don't just drag you up there and say "Mr. X - You've been charged w/ Y and Bond is set at Z - Bailiff please escort the Defendant..."
And frankly you're vastly overestimating how often people aren't just released on recognizance. Unless you've been accused of a felony or violent crime, OR you're a repeat offender of some sort, you're exceptionally likely to get a basic RoR and be on your way.
And if you're found ineligible for PD assistance, you have enough to get one of the lawyers in the little strip mall offices that pop up around courthouses - even if it's just to do a couple of one-off kind of things.
Who you may be talking to are people who bonded out on their own. In many (most?) states there's a presumption that if you can afford to bond out then you must not be indigent - so you fill out a form and advise the court of the fact that you still need a PD. Most people just won't do that but they're advised of their right to do so - heard it a dozen times while waiting for my cases.
There are all sorts of checks/balances and safety nets here. Again - what do you propose? Because the bond system provides a TON of protections.
Right, PD's carrying 240 cases have time for bond reduction hearings. Or rather have time to properly represent their client in a reduction hearing?
I don't have the answers to what I see as wrong. Hopefully smarter people than me do or will.
I'll point out once again if you don't have the money, a lot of money for some people, then you can easily get screwed by the legal system and leave it at that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The drug war is a start and I've said before that Trump, for all his law and order bluster, does seem interested in addressing that. Is it tied to immigration policy, of course it is. But that's a blanket excuse. It doesn't explain enough the continued mass incarceration in many of these traditionally oppressed neighborhoods. And while a good % of prisoners are there for serious offenses it seriously undercounts the number who cycle in and out for small offenses.
But it's not just low level drug offenses. It's broken windows policing and intrusive measures like stop and frisk. It is the Pioli gum wrapper approach to law enforcement. We aren't just treating criminals like criminals, we're treating ordinary citizens minding their own business as criminals. And where do you think that repeat offender stuff starts? Is juvy really an ideal solution or are we just building a pipeline of future criminals by sending kids to Criminal training 101? If jails have horrendous recidivism rates, shouldn't we explore alternatives that might actually reduce likelihood of a repeat offense? How many of those repeat offenders had their life in crime start from an overpunishment for a small, minor nonviolent offense? Does the punishment really fit the crime or could many of these felonies be easily downgraded to fines or misdemeanors?
Now you're shifting the goalposts.
What do broken window policing and stop and frisk have to do with incarceration rates? Broken window policing may take it up a tick but folks are also ignoring that incarceration hasn't gone down when the preferred model has flipped over the years to the community policing model. If it drives it, it's by a de minimis amount that isn't showing in the numbers.
Moreover, if the overwhelming majority of first time possession offenders don't spend time in prison for the offense (not when they're at misdemeanor levels), how are they going to 'criminal training 101' and then being driven into recidivism? They got off with a fine and maybe an ankle bracelet and went back and did it again, so why should I blame prison for their recidivism OR assume that others who are imprisoned wouldn't have additional offenses had they NOT gone to prison?
Besides, at a point incarceration doesn't exist for your benefit but rather for the benefit of the public. If you just won't stop using illegal drugs, we're going to remove you from the population for a bit to at least expose fewer people to you. You've gotten your shot across the bow and you're still breaking the law - time to try something else or at least cull you from the public for a minute or two. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You gonna try to argue that incarceration rates and immigration policy aren't related?
And yes, America imprisons a disproportionate number of non-violent offenders. And yes, that's largely driven by the war on drugs.
You can talk me into significant change in possession offenses and imprisonment. In fact, I believe Trump just put through something that does precisely that (and the same people who hate him couldn't give a ****).
But if you're a drug dealer - get your ass in prison. Violent criminal - prison. If you're a white collar asshole who's committed a financial felony potential depriving innocent people of their livelihoods - **** you, prison.
The majority of folks that are in prison deserve to be there. The stats bounce all over but there's little argument that the overwhelming majority of people in prison for drugs are there for aggravating circumstances, repeat offenses or distribution.
This "my uncle got caught smoking his first joint and went to jail for 4 years" stuff is just not something that happens.
Originally Posted by Imon Yourside:
It happens more often to whites obviously, the real problem would be police brutality and it needs to be addressed. Especially in the video I posted where the cop gets off with no charges sticking.
I like Chris but i'm still scratching my head to his point, he saw some people on CNN and he believes them?
Originally Posted by Demonpenz:
Chapelle's new shit isn't. very funny
His last special (not this most recent stuff, maybe 18 months ago?) had its moments, but it really inconsistent.
Chapelle used to just murder it. Nothing missed, nothing fell flat. If he tossed a lazy barb out there, it was Andy Reid dialing up a 3-yard out or a HB screen to see what the defense would do and pull it out of position for a beat and run Wasp.
Dude was a monster.
The last special was....ordinary. Joke didn't land, repeat the punchline but LOUDER!! Stomp your feet a bit and be animated to try to squeeze a couple more laughs out of it. Get unnecessarily crass and vulgar when there was a far better joke to be had in there with a little work.
Dude's high marks are as high as ever but he sprinkles a shitload more lows in there than he ever has. Like a baseball player coming out of his prime - the hot streaks are as hot as ever...but they're shorter. And the slumps are deeper and more frequent. [Reply]
