Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
I begin to reply, or else I get the hose again.
That's a good @ThatNickGuy impression. Have you been working on it?
EDIT: Dangit, Nick! You were supposed to wait until I added the link!
--Patrick
I don't get this at all.
I feel like he must have meant @fade
Yeah well I expected I'd have time to include the link but you were awake and in the board at the time and so saw it before I linked it.
--Patrick
Oh. I forgot about that running joke.
No "I begin to reply, but I plied right the first time"?
That's why they call me 1-ply Poe
I was going for :
ply
play
verb, \ˈplī\
Definition of ply
pliedplying
- transitive verb
1 a : to use or wield diligently <busily plying his pen> b : to practice or perform diligently <ply a trade>
2 : to keep furnishing or supplying something to <plied us with liquor>
But I'll allow it.
This post totally breaks the "New Posts" page.
GasBandit
Staff member
Seems ok to me... can you screenshot it for me?[DOUBLEPOST=1464988481,1464987936][/DOUBLEPOST]Looks like it was an issue only if discussion previews are turned on, and then only if it's the newest post in the thread, which it no longer is, so it's no longer an issue
Proposed Minneapolis ballot item would require police to carry professional liability insurance.
Basically, the proposal states cops will have to contribute toward their own work insurance and pay any enhanced premiums themselves instead of making the city do it. The idea is to force more accountability on problem officers and eventually price them out of the profession if they choose to continue acting against public interest.
Basically, the proposal states cops will have to contribute toward their own work insurance and pay any enhanced premiums themselves instead of making the city do it. The idea is to force more accountability on problem officers and eventually price them out of the profession if they choose to continue acting against public interest.
GasBandit
Staff member
This may be a stupid question, but why don't they just fire problem officers?
The city/police aren't backing the bill, an anti police group is. They obviously feel that problem officers aren't punished or fired enough. "Members of the Committee for Professional Policing, a local police accountability group, plan to deliver about 12,000 petition signatures to the city clerk on Thursday. If enough of those signatures are verified...the group’s proposed city charter amendment will be referred to the City Council to be placed on the ballot."
Mostly this but also because ALL governments have a vested interested in denying malfeasance of their representatives... admission of guilt by an officer or the state puts ALL of their arrests in question, which makes the state/city/whatever liable for the damages. This comes out of city coffers and can basically keep the city from functioning. It's one of the reasons why you usually get offered a settlement first; they'd rather lose a small amount then risk a chain of lawsuits against a problem officer that both undermines the authority of the city AND empties the vault.
There is also the issue of police unions, who are notorious for the blue wall of silence. They'll cover for bad officers as a matter of course; what are you paying a union for if they won't protect you? What does the union do if a bad officer threatens implicate others unless they are protected? Most police officers are fine people but no one really cares about that when the word "conspiracy" starts getting thrown around. As such, it's basically impossible to outright fire a police officer these days because both the city and the union have their back.
...Oh dear God do NOT let the people in Madison hear about this.
Dave
Staff member
Sometimes I fucking HATE our "justice" system. Where's the fucking justice? This makes my blood boil.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/stanford-swimmer-brock-allen-turner-sentenced.html
Stanford swimmer that raped an unconscious woman gets 6 months in jail and probation. Why? Because he has no priors and prison might "have a severe impact on him". No fucking shit, judge Aaron Persky, no fucking shit. Maybe it would have such an impact that he'd show some fucking remorse about what he's done and teach him that raping women is fucking horrible.
Jesus christ how the fuck can the judge think this is okay?
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/stanford-swimmer-brock-allen-turner-sentenced.html
Stanford swimmer that raped an unconscious woman gets 6 months in jail and probation. Why? Because he has no priors and prison might "have a severe impact on him". No fucking shit, judge Aaron Persky, no fucking shit. Maybe it would have such an impact that he'd show some fucking remorse about what he's done and teach him that raping women is fucking horrible.
Jesus christ how the fuck can the judge think this is okay?
And there's the problem with the legal system, period: what do you do with them once they're convicted of a crime?
What's too light? Too heavy? How long should someone be put in prison? A week? A month? A year? Until his decayed corpse rots away? Should they have access to anything when they're in prison? Decent sheets? Clothes? A toilet? Books? DVD's? Ipads? Laptops? Xboxes?
And what do you expect this guy to do behind bars? Have access to a pool so he can continue to swim competitively when he's out? Let him learn how to swim in his cell toilet? Learn to kickbox? Free weights? A crummy rec cage with a half-torn basketball and a bent hoop? Get an institution job? Have him scrub the baseboards every day? Let him take further college coursework via video and/or online classes?
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. People have thrown around all the abuse questions and the "we have to find somewhere else to put these children/people" - without stopping to consider what they should be doing to them.
A jail cell is not a magical "be-all and end-all" to society's problems.
What's too light? Too heavy? How long should someone be put in prison? A week? A month? A year? Until his decayed corpse rots away? Should they have access to anything when they're in prison? Decent sheets? Clothes? A toilet? Books? DVD's? Ipads? Laptops? Xboxes?
And what do you expect this guy to do behind bars? Have access to a pool so he can continue to swim competitively when he's out? Let him learn how to swim in his cell toilet? Learn to kickbox? Free weights? A crummy rec cage with a half-torn basketball and a bent hoop? Get an institution job? Have him scrub the baseboards every day? Let him take further college coursework via video and/or online classes?
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. People have thrown around all the abuse questions and the "we have to find somewhere else to put these children/people" - without stopping to consider what they should be doing to them.
A jail cell is not a magical "be-all and end-all" to society's problems.
Rape culture's influence is strong.
Dave
Staff member
In this case I don't think it's rape culture as much as white/rich privilege.
Aye, rehabilitation does not come up in the political conversations enough.
But this instance? Fuck him.
Intersectionality brah
Maybe the judge secretly likes rape, and so goes easier on rapists?
I mean, it IS an actual possibility. If true, it would be very unfortunate.
Instead, my actual guess is that for some reason the judge is being forced to "go easy" due to outside pressures, first-time/youthful offender sentencing guidelines, etc. I'd be interested to know if he wrote an opinion about the case.
--Patrick
Dave: I can't believe the sentences was minimal
Charlie: He got a small sentence because of our culture of rape
Dave: He got a small sentence because he's a rich white kid
Blotsfan: rich white == rape culture
I agree with Dave and disagree with Charlie and blotsfan. If you remove the white privilege, and make him a black male, he would not have gotten a light sentence - and that's without changing the rape culture aspect of it.
If you remove the rape culture aspect of it, but leave the privilege unchanged, I suspect he still gets a light sentence.
Certainly rape culture, privilege, and other aspects of society are interrelated, but to claim that every rape outcome is a product of rape culture is to blind yourself to the full range of problems we face. Focusing only on one aspect, and in this case not the most significant aspect, is a symptom of a larger problem.
Regarding the case itself, his convictions were not very significant, and carried a maximum penalty of 10 years:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ty-sexual-assault_us_56fcacfae4b0a06d5804ce5a
If he had been convicted for first degree rape, he would have had a minimum of 5 years. The crimes he was convicted of had no minimum.
If anything, you should blame the prosecutor or the jury for convicting him of lesser crimes and giving the judge the leeway. Alternately, legislate minimum sentences for the crimes he did commit.
You can still, of course, blame the judge, but unless you've read the entire court transcript then I don't know that you're in any position to second guess his judgement since you know only what the entertainment/sensationalist media have told you.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong necessarily - I'm not going to take the time to read it and rebut. I'm suggesting, however, that your anger might be misplaced, or misinformed. Perhaps you're completely right, and if so I'm sorry for suggesting otherwise, but at least keep in mind that the conviction doesn't match what the media are saying occurred.
Charlie: He got a small sentence because of our culture of rape
Dave: He got a small sentence because he's a rich white kid
Blotsfan: rich white == rape culture
I agree with Dave and disagree with Charlie and blotsfan. If you remove the white privilege, and make him a black male, he would not have gotten a light sentence - and that's without changing the rape culture aspect of it.
If you remove the rape culture aspect of it, but leave the privilege unchanged, I suspect he still gets a light sentence.
Certainly rape culture, privilege, and other aspects of society are interrelated, but to claim that every rape outcome is a product of rape culture is to blind yourself to the full range of problems we face. Focusing only on one aspect, and in this case not the most significant aspect, is a symptom of a larger problem.
Regarding the case itself, his convictions were not very significant, and carried a maximum penalty of 10 years:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ty-sexual-assault_us_56fcacfae4b0a06d5804ce5a
If he had been convicted for first degree rape, he would have had a minimum of 5 years. The crimes he was convicted of had no minimum.
If anything, you should blame the prosecutor or the jury for convicting him of lesser crimes and giving the judge the leeway. Alternately, legislate minimum sentences for the crimes he did commit.
You can still, of course, blame the judge, but unless you've read the entire court transcript then I don't know that you're in any position to second guess his judgement since you know only what the entertainment/sensationalist media have told you.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong necessarily - I'm not going to take the time to read it and rebut. I'm suggesting, however, that your anger might be misplaced, or misinformed. Perhaps you're completely right, and if so I'm sorry for suggesting otherwise, but at least keep in mind that the conviction doesn't match what the media are saying occurred.
Do you know why it's also a rape culture thing? Because even though this guy got caught red handed with this unconscious woman behind a dumpster, since she couldn't remember anything, he got to say it was completely mutual and he didn't realize she had passed out.
Here's the letter she wrote to her attacker
Here's the letter she wrote to her attacker
Dave
Staff member
I can't read that again. Jail might not be the end all be all answer for everything, but for a rich white kid it might be the wake-up call he needs to stop fucking up (which is a very light way of describing what the fucker did). I agree with Dei that the intersection of rape culture is mainly because it doesn't seem that the judge took the victim into consideration AT ALL. She made an amazing and cogent statement and the judge was all like, "Meh. Prison would hurt the poor rich boy."
Fuck that poor little rich boy and fuck that asshole non-empathetic judge.
Fuck that poor little rich boy and fuck that asshole non-empathetic judge.
also the right answer is that it's an everything thing[DOUBLEPOST=1465098029,1465097751][/DOUBLEPOST]
also this is a far more interesting post/series of points. Our prison system is not designed to rehab anyone. just keep them from voting or ever getting a taste of the upper class's money. It only accidentally accomplishes the goal of "keeping dangerous people away from innocent people".