What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Portland - oof. (1 Viewer)

tonydead said:
The post I took issue with was custom scripted (incorrectly) to derail the discussion:   

You're welcome.
Click to expand...
OMG you think that was a serious attempt to derail the discussion?  :shock:
 

People think I spend too much time in here and they’re probably right. But damn you need to take some time away.

 
timschochet said:
Because the less police, the more violence. It’s not rocket science. And wacky Portland is not any kind of indicator for the rest of the nation. We need police reform, not police defund or replace. 
Click to expand...
Is there anything actually showing this is the case?  I realize that this is a common narrative, but I really find it hard to believe that police can/do stop violence before it happens.  I suspect community outreach and social programs would be far more effective.

 
timschochet said:
Oh I’m sure you are. Glad it’s cooled down a little. Still too hot for this silly discussion. 
Click to expand...
the silly discussion came about with calls for "de-fund the police" .  Guess who started this silly rant?   Portland tried it.  not working out except for criminals.

"mostly peaceful protests" by CNN.  what a joke.  the whole "de-fund the police"  was at best an ignorant attempt at vilifying crime in that just leave the criminals alone & they will behave.  According to the mayor of Portland the occupation was more like a love in.    Month later after a few shootings, rapes, beatings feces, et al they had to bring in the troops to disband said settlement-love fest.   a few Portland residents in here claimed that if Trump got rid of the federal force he installed in the city to protect federal buildings that things would return to normal.  nope didn't happen.  surprise!   Criminals will do what criminals do.  

be careful what you wish for and anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming all over where "de-fund the police" was enacted.  

 
Dickies said:
Is there anything actually showing this is the case?  I realize that this is a common narrative, but I really find it hard to believe that police can/do stop violence before it happens.  I suspect community outreach and social programs would be far more effective.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Seems pretty obvious to me but if there’s contradictory data I’ll look at it. 

The purpose of this thread, it seems to me, is to take the most extreme left views about police and conflate them to all discussion of police reform. It’s silly IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
I don’t know. Seems pretty obvious to me but if there’s contradictory data I’ll look at it. 

The purpose of this thread, it seems to me, is to take the most extreme left views about police and conflate them to all discussion of police reform. It’s silly IMO. 
Click to expand...
Well, when you have the extreme left burning down cities, looting businesses, taking over city blocks, attacking government buildings (insurrection, anyone?) and assaulting and murdering people AND then Democratic leadership standing behind them and defend them (AOC, Kamala, Waters, Pelosi, Shumer, Biden, etc..) it's not too hard of a stretch to say "the left want to defund the police".

They made this bed.  They now have to sleep in it.  You don't get to walk back "we want to defund the police" when it blows up in your face or make excuses like, oh I don't know, "defund the police doesn't really mean defund the police".  :doh:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I don’t know. Seems pretty obvious to me but if there’s contradictory data I’ll look at it. 

The purpose of this thread, it seems to me, is to take the most extreme left views about police and conflate them to all discussion of police reform. It’s silly IMO. 
Click to expand...
I did a little digging, and apparently there is a correlation between police and crime.  Pretty interesting short read.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens

 
timschochet said:
I don’t know. Seems pretty obvious to me but if there’s contradictory data I’ll look at it. 

The purpose of this thread, it seems to me, is to take the most extreme left views about police and conflate them to all discussion of police reform. It’s silly IMO. 
Click to expand...
I mean the data would show that if you put 100 cops on every block than there would be less crime.  The question is around the balance and ensuring police are focusing on police priorities.

Police forces have never been bigger and have never had more money and crime is surging across the country

 
killface said:
I mean the data would show that if you put 100 cops on every block than there would be less crime.  The question is around the balance and ensuring police are focusing on police priorities.

Police forces have never been bigger and have never had more money and crime is surging across the country
Click to expand...
Then maybe we should apply this theory to all parts of government instead of just police, specifically, public schools.  They've never had more money than they do now and still graduate less and less students every year.

Of course, I'm not completely serious with this statement but if you're going to tie money to results then we should apply to all parts of government.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
OMG you think that was a serious attempt to derail the discussion?  :shock:
Click to expand...
I kinda like to give the benefit of the doubt and the temperature debate is a waste of time.  But... we don't have to speculate that you are attempting to derail discussion because you've already qualified the discussion as silly.  The whole temperature debate certainly didn't add any value...did it?

 
killface said:
Feel free to show me the data per pupil.

From 1977 to 2018, in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars, state and local government spending on police increased from $43 billion to $119 billion, an increase of 175 percent

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/criminal-justice-police-corrections-courts-expenditures
Click to expand...
But I'm not arguing on spending per pupil.  I'm arguing that the ROI we're getting on it is terrible.  You said the same thing about the police funding and crime stats.  :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
But I'm not arguing on spending per pupil.  I'm arguing that the ROI we're getting on it is terrible.  You said the same thing about the police funding and crime stats.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
Police spending has risen tremendously and crime is rising....that's a little different

As far as I can fin Milwaukee schools have had revenue caps in since the mid-90s and fund most schools at around 10k per pupil which is less than the national average.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2019/07/30/cost-educating-child-wisconsin-depends-where-you-live/1743930001/

Wiki tells me that graduation rates have risen in the usa from 85 to 90% since the 80s

In fact, since the 2000s there have been massive gains in high school graduation. Good article here

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2020/03/02/are-americas-rising-high-school-graduation-rates-real-or-just-an-accountability-fueled-mirage/

While salaries for teachers have fallen 4.5% over the last decade in real $$$

https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/teacher-salaries-analysis/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich said:
I kinda like to give the benefit of the doubt and the temperature debate is a waste of time.  But... we don't have to speculate that you are attempting to derail discussion because you've already qualified the discussion as silly.  The whole temperature debate certainly didn't add any value...did it?
Click to expand...
It was an attempt to lighten the discussion, not derail it. That’s all. Like mentioning what kind of beets you like. 

 
killface said:
Police spending has risen tremendously and crime is rising....that's a little different

As far as I can fin Milwaukee schools have had revenue caps in since the mid-90s and fund most schools at around 10k per pupil which is less than the national average.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2019/07/30/cost-educating-child-wisconsin-depends-where-you-live/1743930001/

Wiki tells me that graduation rates have risen in the usa from 85 to 90% since the 80s

In fact, since the 2000s there have been massive gains in high school graduation. Good article here

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2020/03/02/are-americas-rising-high-school-graduation-rates-real-or-just-an-accountability-fueled-mirage/

While salaries for teachers have fallen 4.5% over the last decade in real $$$

https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/teacher-salaries-analysis/
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....thanks for the links.  :thumbup:

It  appears I may have been wrong about MPS graduation rates.

 
killface said:
I mean the data would show that if you put 100 cops on every block than there would be less crime.  The question is around the balance and ensuring police are focusing on police priorities.

Police forces have never been bigger and have never had more money and crime is surging across the country
Click to expand...
I bookmarked two articles a while back.  One showed a direct correlation between police on the beat and a decrease in crime.  Actually a decrease in incarceration.  Thats a win-win.  I can't find the bookmark / link 🤣 ... will have to look some more.

I did find this bookmark.  The Atlantic.  It's a pretty superficial article but has a number of references to work that was deeper and I like how it presents the train of thought.  Some interesting potential drivers of reduced crime that it highlights...hint its not what you might think.

The article did reference a correlation to increased policing and less crime, but positioned it as not the biggest driver.

Last point I'd make is that everything depends on time horizon, you are saying that crime is surging, but that is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Crime in general has been decreasing over the course of decades (as police spending has increased).  So the better question is what is causing the 1yr crime spike...I don't think it can be police manpower alone (which I think we agree on).

BTW, related to the @timschochet media crusades I think I deserve some cred for linking to a left leaning source.

Edited:  Found the other Link.   More COPS, Less Crime 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich said:
I bookmarked two articles a while back.  One showed a direct correlation between police on the beat and a decrease in crime.  Actually a decrease in incarceration.  Thats a win-win.  I can't find the bookmark / link 🤣 ... will have to look some more.

I did find this bookmark.  The Atlantic.  It's a pretty superficial article but has a number of references to work that was deeper and I like how it presents the train of thought.  Some interesting potential drivers of reduced crime that it highlights...hint its not what you might think.

The article did reference a correlation to increased policing and less crime, but positioned it as not the biggest driver.

Last point I'd make is that everything depends on time horizon, you are saying that crime is surging, but that is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Crime in general has been decreasing over the course of decades (as police spending has increased).  So the better question is what is causing the 1yr crime spike...I don't think it can be police manpower alone (which I think we agree on).

BTW, related to the @timschochet media crusades I think I deserve some cred for linking to a left leaning source.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you and  I did note above I wouldn't be concerned with a 1 year increase.  It's not statistically relevant.  

We are coming out of a really weird year with the lockdowns and so many people unemployed and drinking and drug use at all time highs.  There are a lot of factors at play here.

Budget is not one of them if I had to guess but I truly don't know until we see how it plays out.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Government Debunks Portland - Jan 6 Comparisons

The government just responded to January 6 defendant Garret Miller’s claim of selective prosecution. Miller is charged with assault and civil disorder, obstruction, and — for threats against AOC and the officer who shot Ashli Babbit — interstate threats.

On January 15, 2021, MILLER admitted in a Facebook chat that he is “happy to make death threats so I been just off the rails tonight lol,” and is “happy to be banned now [from Twitter].” When asked whether the police know his name, he responded, “t might be time for me to …. Be hard to locate.”

Last month, Miller filed two motions claiming selective prosecution (for discovery, to dismiss). He argued that Portland defendants were treated differently than he is being treated, because many of the Portland cases involving (some but not all of) the same crimes he was charged with are being dismissed or resulting in plea deals.

Undersigned Counsel has undertaken an extensive review of pleadings filed on PACER, press releases issued by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon, and various news accounts as they relate to the Portland riots. From that review, it appears that approximately 74 persons were charged with criminal offenses arising out of the riots. 5 Of those 74 persons, to date, approximately 30 persons have had their cases dismissed (often with prejudice) upon motion of the government, 12 persons appear to have been offered dismissals upon completing a pre-trial diversion program, and at least 3 persons have been allowed by the government to plead guilty to significantly reduced charges.6

Most of the Portland rioters were charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3) (civil disorder) and/or a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (assault on a federal officer). These are the same charges brought against Mr. Miller in Counts One, Two and Four of the Superseding Indictment based upon his participation in the Washington, D.C. riots.

Given the right wing efforts to compare the two events, this was an inevitable legal challenge. And as such, it will be one of the few times where the government is asked to compare their prosecutorial decisions between the two events.

The government responded to the motion for discovery today. It argues, generally, that Miller hasn’t presented any similarly situated people.

Miller fails this showing. A selective-prosecution claim requires the defendant to identify “similarly situated” individuals who “have not been prosecuted,” Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d at 946 (citation omitted), and Miller has pointed to no such individual. He instead cites 45 cases (from a sample of 74) where the government charged the defendant with federal offenses arising from riots around the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, and where the government subsequently dismissed the charges, entered a deferred-prosecution agreement, or acceded to the defendant’s guilty plea on reduced charges. Doc. 32, at 7.2

2 Miller’s motion further references pleadings from 31 of these cases where, in his view, the defendant’s conduct in Portland mirrored his actions on January 6, 2021. Doc. 32, at 8-16; see also Doc. 32-1 (Attachments 1-31).

This is how most selective prosecution claims die: the precedents require coming in with proof of an almost exactly similar case getting differently treated, and then proving it was differently treated for some kind of bias.

It then points out the obvious: Miller is not claiming selective prosecution, he’s claiming that the outcomes of those prosecutions are different than his is likely to be.

This comparison fails, first and foremost, because the government actually charged nearly all defendants in the listed Oregon cases with civil-disorder or assault offenses. See Doc. 32-1 (Attachments 2-31). Miller has accordingly shown no disparate treatment in the government’s charging approaches. He instead focuses on the manner in which the government ultimately resolved the Oregon cases, and contrasts it with, in his opinion, the “one-sided and draconian plea agreement offer” that the government recently transmitted to him. Doc. 32, at 6. This presentation—which compares the government’s initial plea offer to him with the government’s final resolution in 45 hand-picked Oregon cases—“falls woefully short of demonstrating a consistent pattern of unequal administration of the law.”3 United States v. Bernal-Rojas, 933 F.2d 97, 99 (1st Cir. 1991). In fact, the government’s initial plea offer here rebuts any inference that that it has “refused to plea bargain with [Miller], yet regularly reached agreements with otherwise similarly situated defendants.” Ibid.

3 Miller’s motion notably omits reference to the remaining 29 Oregon cases in his survey, presumably because the government’s litigation decisions in those cases do not conform to his inference of selective treatment.

You can’t claim selective prosecution when those other defendants were also charged, especially not after you, yourself, have been offered the same “significantly reduced charges” you’re complaining Portland protestors got.

But then the government goes into specifics about what distinguishes Miller: generally, there’s far better evidence against Miller, and, specifically, he committed other crimes as well.

More fundamentally, the 45 Oregon cases serve as improper “comparator” because those defendants and Miller are not similarly situated. Stone, 394 F. Supp. 3d at 31. Miller unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol and resisted the law enforcement officers who tried to move him. Doc. 16, at 4. He did so while elected lawmakers and the Vice President of the United States were present in the building and attempting to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential Election in accordance with Article II of the Constitution. Id. at 2-3. And he committed a host of federal offenses attendant to this riot, including threatening to kill a Congresswoman and a USCP officer. Id. at 5-6. All this was captured on video and Miller’s social-media posts. See 4/1/21 Hr’g Tr. 19:14-15 (“[T]he evidence against Mr. Miller is strong.”). Contrast that with the 45 Oregon defendants, who—despite committing serious offenses—never entered the federal courthouse structure, impeded a congressional proceeding, or targeted a specific federal official or officer for assassination. Additionally, the government’s evidence in those cases often relied on officer recollections (e.g., identifying the particular offender on a darkened plaza with throngs of people) that could be challenged at trial—rather than video and well-documented incriminating statements available in this case. These situational and evidentiary differences represent “distinguishable legitimate prosecutorial factors that might justify making different prosecutorial decisions” in Miller’s case. Branch Ministries, 211 F.3d at 145 (quoting United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 1997)); see also Price v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 865 F.3d 676, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (observing that a prosecutor may legitimately consider “concerns such as rehabilitation, allocation of criminal justice resources, the strength of the evidence against the defendant, and the extent of a defendant’s cooperation” in plea negotiations) (brackets and citation omitted)

More importantly (and a point that Trevor McFadden made when Couy Griffin tried to claim he was being picked on because he got charged with the same trespassing charge virtually everyone else got charged with), the government notes that Miller hasn’t been treated differently than any of the 500 others who’ve been charged in January 6.

[H]e is one of more than 500 defendants already charged for participating in the riot, and he does not suggest that he has been treated differently than any of those similarly situated defendants.

This is a response to a guy who, though his assault charges are not as serious as the assaults charged against others, then went on Twitter and bragged about committing crimes, and then threatened several people, including a Congressperson. Other January 6 defendants might raise more interesting selective prosecution challenges, which will likely fail for the general comments laid out about the quality of evidence involved. But this challenge was doomed from the start. Miller’s alleged crimes were so well documented — on camera and in his own words — that he was never the person to bring this challenge.

More importantly, the government raises one big reason why the January 6 defendants will be prosecuted and some Portland defendants will not (setting aside the 29 cases Miller tried to pretend didn’t exist), even assuming their alleged crimes are just as bad: because there weren’t tens of thousands of others filming their actions, because they didn’t try to occupy a building full of CCTV, and because they didn’t brag about their crimes after the fact.

This may not end the comparisons between January 6 and Portland. But it does lay out for the court very practical reasons why throwing the book at January 6 defendants is easier to do than Portland defendants: because January 6 defendants committed alleged crimes in bright spaces covered by CCTV and then went on social media and bragged about doing so, whereas many Portland defendants did so in “darkened plazas.”
Click to expand...


 
Herb said:
You need to drop this in some of the Jan 6 threads. 
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd thought initially about posting it in the Jan 6 defendant's thread....but I wasn't sure I wanted to muddy it with potential troll ammunition since for the most part it's been used to just post defendant sentencing info.  In retrospect, it DOES belong there.

 
Maggot Brain said:
Yes, I'd thought initially about posting it in the Jan 6 defendant's thread....but I wasn't sure I wanted to muddy it with potential troll ammunition since for the most part it's been used to just post defendant sentencing info.  In retrospect, it DOES belong there. Thanks for the 'nudge' 👍
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Police Departments Struggle With Critical Staffing Shortages Is A Threat To National Security ( 7/19/22 22:43 PST)
2 3
Replies
100
Views
6K
Yenrub
Yenrub
GordonGekko
Oregon’s Gubernatorial Battleground: Phil Knight's Big Nike Money Vs Extremist Identity Politics (10/23/22 12:29 PST)
Replies
4
Views
975
quick-hands
quick-hands
GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
2K
tymarsas
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top