Jump to content

The Joe Biden Presidency Thread


Mr. Hoopah!
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Vogelgryff said:

In the United States, robbery is generally treated as an aggravated form of common law larceny. Specific elements and definitions differ from state to state. The common elements of robbery are:

  1. a trespassory
  2. taking and
  3. carrying away
  4. of the personal property
  5. of another
  6. with the intent to steal
  7. from the person or presence of the victim
  8. by force or threat of force.

That's Wiki, so you probably have more reliable sources... but for now...

Well, there is no crime without a statute.  The statute in question in the state of florida, 812.13, says "'Robbery' means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear."

Every element is technically met here.

Again, I'm not at all saying she will be or ought to be convicted of it in this case, under these circumstances.  But I fully understand why it was charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

the "clear implications my words" somehow being "if you don't want your **** stolen, you don't care about police" is absolute ********, and you know it. and instead of asking me for clarification, you went for the dishonest, flippant, strawman. and now you're here, because you care more about being right than doing right. 

 

You enjoy telling people what they care more about, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

the "clear implications my words" somehow being "if you don't want your **** stolen, you don't care about police" is absolute ********, and you know it. and instead of asking me for clarification, you went for the dishonest, flippant, strawman. and now you're here, because you care more about being right than doing right. 

 

I am sure 100% @JDaveG wants to do right, but you've got that squirrel cage wheel going a 100 miles an hour, and now you're are stuck and don't know how to get off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

This is insane to me.  I see a situation where literally anyone can be a cop, very little education required, very little training expected, and your answer is less pay, less training and less qualified candidates (because highly qualified candidates won't work for low pay, lousy benefits, and crappy training where they bear the consequences of all three in real time).

We absolutely need more funding for police.  Not necessarily more police, and certainly not more law enforcement (too many things are illegal to begin with).  So yeah, if quantity is what is being sought with more funding, I agree with you.  But improving quality?  100% this needs to be done, and it requires more pay, more training, and therefore more funding (because payroll and training cost money).

So, a fiscal conservative is telling me we need to throw more money at the problem as opposed to changing the way we currently manage their funds?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like i understand that i can be an abrasive ******* - if someone wants to call me out for it, i'm happy to concede and apologize if i've lost the plot. but i feel like you don't get that you can also be the board's most condescending prick, sometimes. 

anyways, we've all been here for years. i appreciate and respect all of you, and in my mind there's zero need to respond to each other in that flippant, silly way. it's comes across extremely disrespectful and just immediately hostile, and when you're already posting less here lately, it just comes across like you're only responding to me when you want to be a ****, and not when you want to have a conversation.

that's all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Boner said:

Absolutely not.

No they do. Baltimore is one such city. We talk about better training and things like body cameras are needed for better policing, but those things cost money. Also, underfunding means less pay, less police, underserved communities, and existing officers who are stretched thin by long hours and posted in unfamiliar places. That leads to mistakes.

Part of effective law enforcement means having rapport with the residents. Can't have that when you don't have enough personnel and funding to make sure officers stay in the same area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Well, there is no crime without a statute.  The statute in question in the state of florida, 812.13, says "'Robbery' means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear."

Every element is technically met here.

Again, I'm not at all saying she will be or ought to be convicted of it in this case, under these circumstances.  But I fully understand why it was charged.

Thanks for taking the time to look it up and sharing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boner said:

So, a fiscal conservative is telling me we need to throw more money at the problem as opposed to changing the way we currently manage their funds?  

 

I'm not really much of a fiscal conservative.  So no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, I think Achilles and Jdave get off, sexually, by arguing with each other.  They are rather close in opinion here and they are arguing about misinterpretations that are occuring in both sides of the argument.  That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, achilles return said:

like i understand that i can be an abrasive ******* - if someone wants to call me out for it, i'm happy to concede and apologize if i've lost the plot. but i feel like you don't get that you can also be the board's most condescending prick, sometimes. 

anyways, we've all been here for years. i appreciate and respect all of you, and in my mind there's zero need to respond to each other in that flippant, silly way. it's comes across extremely disrespectful and just immediately hostile, and when you're already posting less here lately, it just comes across like you're only responding to me when you want to be a ****, and not when you want to have a conversation.

that's all.

 

Alright -- I'll drop it.  I wasn't trying to get under your skin for no reason.  Honestly, I'm pretty tired of the whole "if you don't ________ (agree with me) then you ___________ (insert association with bad things)" line of reasoning.  It comes from your side almost exclusively, at least in my experience.  That's 99% of what I was reacting to.

But if I've been unfair with you, I apologize.  I'm not trying to be flippant.  I honestly don't think you realize how flippant your comment comes across though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

This is insane to me.  I see a situation where literally anyone can be a cop, very little education required, very little training expected, and your answer is less pay, less training and less qualified candidates (because highly qualified candidates won't work for low pay, lousy benefits, and crappy training where they bear the consequences of all three in real time).

We absolutely need more funding for police.  Not necessarily more police, and certainly not more law enforcement (too many things are illegal to begin with).  So yeah, if quantity is what is being sought with more funding, I agree with you.  But improving quality?  100% this needs to be done, and it requires more pay, more training, and therefore more funding (because payroll and training cost money).

Yeah, I'd like to see how much of the money that goes to policing the US goes to salaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boner said:

Fair enough, but that doesn't change my point.  Saying they need more money, without dissecting what they are currently spending, is laughable to me.  

 

3 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

Yeah, I'd like to see how much of the money that goes to policing the US goes to salaries.

I think both of these are fair points.  Perhaps a diversion of money is needed.  Or perhaps a significant reduction in force size (accomplished by eliminating bad actors and, if needed, bringing in more high quality officers) and diverting salary to training, perhaps even saving money in the process.

But I assume you'd both agree that defunding without evaluating the same measures is equally laughable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr.11 said:

No they do. Baltimore is one such city. We talk about better training and things like body cameras are needed for better policing, but those things cost money. Also, underfunding means less pay, less police, underserved communities, and existing officers who are stretched thin by long hours and posted in unfamiliar places. That leads to mistakes.

Part of effective law enforcement means having rapport with the residents. Can't have that when you don't have enough personnel and funding to make sure officers stay in the same area.

Or, you know, shift their current funding from militaristic-minded spending to the areas that need the most work, like proper de-escalation training, body cameras, etc.

I'm sure a lot of people here have seen the graphic regarding spending on the LAPD compared to other areas. Priorities need to be shifted, not have more money thrown at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr.11 said:

No they do. Baltimore is one such city. We talk about better training and things like body cameras are needed for better policing, but those things cost money. Also, underfunding means less pay, less police, underserved communities, and existing officers who are stretched thin by long hours and posted in unfamiliar places. That leads to mistakes.

Part of effective law enforcement means having rapport with the residents. Can't have that when you don't have enough personnel and funding to make sure officers stay in the same area.

Maybe if they used some of that sweet sweet civil forfeiture money on something useful then they would be funded as needed.

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/investigations/bs-md-ci-police-seizures-20180330-story.html

 

I think Police (like teachers) need to be funded appropriately but I have seen enough to know that some police departments have plenty of funding for things needed but the money ends up going other places.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and in all honesty, it was a bad post. i blame typing on an ipad while trying to eat a bowl of cereal. i was responding to the "why are you guys talking about the police and not about the looters?", and i was absolutely being flippant, but only to a random lurker i thought was holding up both as somehow equal in importance for the sake of marginalizing police brutality. 

it definitely wasn't targeted at any other posters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...