I am currently suing a former landlord in NYC — a lecturer at Columbia Law school no less! — for illegally withholding our security deposit in an open and shut case.
We’ve been “awaiting a court date” for over a year now. We don’t need the money and were planning on donating (the significant) damages to non-profits helping people who wouldn’t otherwise have the resources to get justice, but it’s still super depressing that the court system basically gave up during COVID and doesn’t appear to be trending in the right direction to be fixed anytime soon.
No doubt our legally sophisticated landlord knew this and took the bet that we would have no real recourse for over a year toward anything they did.
There should be no need for leverage. Counsel should be advising they use the courts as intended to cause compliance with contracts and laws that should be enforced and respected. If your only remedy is causing embarrassment, that's a sign that the system is badly broken.
This is like saying "Don't bother contacting support, raise a ruckus on Twitter or contact an insider if you have a problem with <insert tech company>."
Yes, maybe maybe public embarrassment, Twitter, and insiders are the most practical, effective ways of resolving issues today, but that's not the way it should be.
Lawsuits are part of a negotiation. Everyone wins if the parties can settle out of court. In most lawsuits, the court is a bogeyman: you’re posturing to show you’ll win and that the other side should capitulate before wasting everyone’s time and embarrassing itself in a public forum.
> counsel should be advising they use the courts
Counsel should recommend what works. New York’s courts work. But they work slowly.
> like saying "Don't bother contacting support, raise a ruckus on Twitter or contact an insider
> Counsel should recommend what works. New York’s courts work. But they work slowly.
Sorry, I was using a different kind of "should" - you were thinking of the pragmatic, I was speaking philosophically. In a hypothetical, just, efficient, utopian society, I think that world would be a better place if lawsuits were judged and enforced more consistently and more quickly, and if people in that society chose to avoid using public embarrassment as leverage to circumvent the courts. Obviously, we don't live in that world, so the pragmatic approach is to use the tools that are most functional. I wish that we could change our actual society to conform more closely to that hypothetical one.
The courts are the last resort, you shouldn't use them unless you cannot resolve your issues via negotiation. Embarrassment can be a very useful tool in negotiation.
The asterisk here is that they teach social media / libel / defamation law. At this point I know tenant law as well as one can, but yelling about them by name on the internet would likely play into their hand.
When Cuomo told people they couldn't get evicted and didn't have to pay the last month's rent, I had tenants with white collar jobs decide to leave an apartment I rent a mess b/c "hey, you have no security deposit".
I could have gone to the courts but would have been the same outcome: wait a year and who knows what would have happened.
Because speedy trial is a matter of Constitutional right in criminal trials, it is almost certainly more of a problem for non-criminal trials than criminal ones.
Often, the law will stipulated a legal rate of interest on damages from the point at which the breach occurred until damages are fully paid or specific property transferred.
You could, but because it wasn't part of your original contract, the courts will likely find it invalid. You're not allowed to impose interest that was not agreed upon beforehand.
Also, part of a trial is to make the judge/jury like you. No matter how right you are, if you're an arrogant person, you won't get much sympathy. It's much better to wait for the courts to settle the issue, where a judge could impose punitive damages (interest).
Where I live (Ontario, Canada) security deposits are illegal. Simplifies everything and levels the playing field. Key deposits are also illegal. Only thing a landlord can charge is rent (first and last up front) and its legally required to pay interest on the last month's rent (although good luck milking that from most landlords). No need for escrow since to get your last month's rent back you just don't pay your last month.
There are, of course, landlords who do not follow the law. As with drug dealers, pimps, and phone companies they generally prey on the less fortunate. Legal aid and the landlord-tenant tribunals keep busy.
Weird, here in Switzerland it's the same but opposite - As a tenant, I have to transfer my security deposit to an account with my own bank and give my bank the permission to tell my landlord which account and how much is in it.
Not in the UK at least [0]. Claims and counter-claims go through an independent third party. I've had a landlord try to claim £3k from my deposit, only for this scheme to award them £200. Decisions are final. It can take a few weeks.
> He was charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—despite not actually attacking anyone with the pocketknife
Perhaps he should have been charged with attempted armed robbery (IIRC from law school the punishment for attempt crimes is the same), but overall these charges sound right.
In general, there are two kinds of assault: putting someone in reasonable fear of imminent unlawful battery, or attempted battery (even if you miss). This would have been the former.
There may be specifics of the relevant statutes (in whatever jurisdiction) that made one of these charges inappropriate, but the reporter doesn't give any indication this is the case.
Does anyone else (who works in criminal law, or at least remembers crimlaw better than I do) have ideas on the appropriateness of the charges?
"Assault" seems correct here. Broadly speaking, charges for threatening someone with a knife and then screaming you'll beat them up will usually be some flavor of "assault," be it aggravated, attempted, or whatever the exact term the relevant statute uses. The "despite not attacking anyone" is a weird framing because stealing with a threat of injury tends to be treated as a pretty serious violent crime even without actually causing an injury.
Source: Way too much time as a rent-a-cop. Even dealt with a couple instances of armed shoplifting.
Yeah the question that lingered for me is: what makes this aggravated assault, if "with a deadly weapon" is already appended to the charge? I would think that the involvement of a deadly weapon could be an aggravating circumstance, but it seems like double-counting to up the charge in two places based on the weapon.
But a quick google [1] shows that in NM, assault counts as aggravated if you're just holding a deadly weapon. So the reporting is just a bit sloppy — the charge itself doesn't reference "with a deadly weapon". It's just aggravated assault (because a deadly weapon was involved).
This explanation isn't coming from the state. It's written and published by a for-profit law firm to attract business, in the same way a tech company might have a blog with beginner tutorials on tech topics.
huh, well I didn't know there was a crime wave but this answers one of my questions about if people don't want to work anymore what could they be doing to make ends meet? Which I asked thinking that there was not really any significant crime right now.
on edit: however the article doesn't seem to tell anything about property crimes or other things that lead to people getting money out of it, it seems more concerned with violence (which I guess should be concerned with) but then I still don't know, hey how are all these people who don't want to work getting by. It's not really the kind of problem you can assault your way out of.
The unemployment rate is also very low. We just lost a lot of workers to covid or people figuring out how to make ends meet without work during the quarantine, like families realizing that having one parent stay home to raise the kids is cheaper than daycare even with the second paycheck. The whole "no one wants to work" narrative is a lie from companies that are unwilling to respond to market forces.
Hell even if no one actually wanted to work, that's still something you have to deal with as a business the same way you have to deal with if no one wants to buy what you're selling
In the scale of things, I could imagine a combination of the 200k people who died (those below retirement age) and the 2 million people who were hospitalized (who knows what kind of long term effects they had, also below retirement age) and also the 80 million who had symptomatic illness (how many of them have long Covid now?) we might see a needle moved in the job sector… especially if the losses are in specific professions that had more exposure to people…
That’s a narrative that is very convenient for companies big companies, who can very cheaply pay people to spread it around.
There’s a different narrative that goes like this: those companies fired a bunch of people during lockdown, and the government decided to intervene and give them money (not enough to cover the rent and food expenses while lockdown)
Have some “profiteered” from that? Probably. It’s a big number of people. For a lot of people it wasn’t enough. So they found other ways to survive.
Now the companies (who let’s remember, shacked everyone in the first place) want to go back to how things were before. With same rates. And the pandemic hasn’t finished yet (there’s new variants going on). In this context, would it be wise for people to go back? A lot of them have been forced into finding something else (which is more pandemic-resilient). Cutting expenses, moving out of big cities, etc. Another lockdown and they would be fired again.
Here in Sweden the government didn't shut down much of the economy. Guess what happens during a pandemic? People don't go shopping, to restaurants, or consume much outside of their homes.
It's a bullshit argument, the pandemic causes a downturn for in-person businesses anyway.
Also, offices and other businesses that kept open had issues with staffing due to sickness. Go figure...
No. A global pandemic caused disease and death. Governments imposed lockdowns.
Maybe that was the right course of action, maybe it wasn't. But it's done now, and now we have to pay for the cost of the Covid response, something we'll probably be doing for the rest of our lives.
Over a million people in the US died of COVID (officially), and untold more developed permanent injuries as a side effect of being infected. What "cost" are we paying from lockdowns, compared to the cost in lives and lost potential?
That's a non sequitur. There's no reliable evidence that more people would have died without lockdowns. The lockdowns were an irrational overreaction and largely ineffective.
Sure, but certainly more people would have gotten sick. And if they get sick all at once, the medical system is overwhelmed and those without treatment would die.
The argument is only rhetorical because all governments in every country imposed some sort of lockdown or everyone stayed home willingly.
As I read before, this article[0] summarises quite well what I think about people who spout this bullshit about economies and markets during a fucking pandemic. It's their Moloch.
For this kind of people, capitalist supremacists, sacrifice of human lives to the market is ok, might be "sad" but it's necessary in their worldview.
Even in its massive printing of money, the government gave about $13,000 of stimulus to 150 million households across 2 years (this is counting things like increased unemployment benefits, food assistance, delayed student loan payments, etc). This puts the stimulus at below the second decile for income for a single year. Even for the most frugal of households, the money the government handed them long ago ran out.
This is not correct. There were a multitude of payments given out besides stimulus. The CARES act alone gave $600/week of federal money for 17 weeks, totaling almost 11k. You are vastly underestimating the amount of aid given for unemployment. It's been so widely known that it's become a meme: the unemployed person making more money playing xbox than they did when they had to work.
I wasn’t just talking about the stimulus checks. 2 trillion is the entirety of extra money spent by the federal government on individuals over the course of the various pandemic bills. (There was another 2.5-3 trillion of spending, but that was spent on other interest groups such as businesses and medical providers)
You’re right that the maximum amount of money an individual could have received from the government is quite high. But for every household that received more than the 13k I stated above, other households received proportionally less. (Which is to say while undoubtably some people lived the meme you mentioned, the vast majority of people weren’t given that much money) Plus it doesn’t change the main point that the spending stopped in Sept 2021. We’re two months off from it having been a year since extra unemployment benefits were a factor.
It's obviously extremely difficult to give a number because of the wide variety of situations and differences by state, but it has been widely reported to be extremely generous to those who do not work.
Estimates range from 50k [1] to 100k [2]. People were getting $600 per week in federal unemployment alone [3], which is more than many jobs pay.
> NPR spoke to Katharine Thomas, who works the cash register at a small food co-op in Wisconsin. Thomas remembers seeing people around her lose jobs and collect the state unemployment income plus the extra federal relief of $600 a week.
> "I felt very angry," she says. "I have to go to work. And I make less money, being essential. $600 a week — that's almost the whole paycheck for me. Even with hazard pay, I still don't make that much money."
So the end date of the benefits is Sep 6, 2021. Is the claim here that the additional income was so high that people still no longer have to work in Jul 2022?
And the amount of benefits received is calculated based on people with children earning $60k per year in GA and $80k in MA (a very high cost of living state). Either way, both of these figures are above median incomes, so is the claim here that people with above median incomes quit their jobs in order to collect temporary benefits and then never re entered the workforce?
Oh shit is that still occurring? Weird I thought that ended a while ago but obviously if you’re this angry the government must have a line item for making sure no one works currently.
No possible way that ended ages ago but is still being used as a talking point for why shitty companies can’t respond to systematic changes in the market
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We ban accounts that do that. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
Your comment would be fine without the last paragraph. Actually it would have been fine with just the one substantive sentence ("The government gave out [etc.]")
Many property crimes go unreported if there is no expectation that thr police will do anything about it.
IIRC, car thefts do tend to be reported because otherwise insurance won't pay out, and those are certainly up (at least in some areas, I don't know about thr whole country).
Apparently people are stealing catalytic converters like there's no tomorrow. Some people have been literally killed trying to stop people stealing it from their car.
Mobs are literally going into malls and basically stealing everything in one specific store.
Homeless people are killing people, shoving people into running trains and in a lot of cases the victims are women.
Package theft (porch pirates) is at an all time high.
Mass Murders (gunning down multiple people) is happening every day in the united states.
But yeah I guess other than that, it's really not happening.
> Package theft (porch pirates) is at an all time high.
People having easily carried valuable items unattended on their porch which is easily accessible to any random passerby for hours at a time is at an all time high.
It used to be somewhat of a hassle to convince a delivery company to leave anything worth more than a few dollars anywhere there wasn't someone to sign for the delivery.
The talking points of people who deny reality are wild. Is CNN a bastion of conservatism?
>More than two-thirds of the country's 40 most populous cities saw more homicides last year than in 2020, according to a CNN analysis of police department data.
>Ten of those cities recorded more homicides in 2021 than any other year on record. Those are Philadelphia; Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis; Portland, Oregon; Memphis, Tennessee; Louisville, Kentucky; Milwaukee; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Tucson, Arizona. Minneapolis tied its previous record number of homicides, with 97 in the years 1997 and 2021.
"Criminologists have offered several explanations for the increase, including the rise in gun sales early in the pandemic"
I wonder what the explaination is here. I would think that the increase in sales would be an effect from the perception of increased violence, especially given the sales are background checked. Articles talking about the increase in gun ownership during the pandemic tend to talk about how those people were getting a gun because of the increase in violence. I hear there could be an increase in thefts, but haven't seen the numbers for that. I could see that being a feedback mechanism, but would be secondary to the original cause.
The big crime increases in my area have mostly been non-violent, mostly shoplifting and catalytic converter thefts. I don't think gun sales caused that (unless people are struggling to pay their ammo bills).
If we disconnect ourselves from the political anglosphere it's well agreed upon that easier access to deadlier weapons has an immediate effect on levels of crime, violent or not. [1][2]
Humans are impulse decision makers. Easy access to the needed tools just decreases impulse resistance. The simplest way this can be observed is in suicide. Lax rules for the access to deadly firearms has a direct effect on suicide rates.
Where is the link to non-violent crime increase? I didn't see that in those links.
I've seen the studies about stuff like suicide being more successful with access to easy methods. But my question is whether the attempts also increase.
Also, this study (not a news article with potential biases) seems to disagree with the effects of the gun buyback reducing firearm deaths.
The most striking thing: Family thought prison could actually help. I don't know but to me, prison is the last thing I want my family to go through. Even if it is to get clean or whatever. You don't want them to have a criminal record.
This is the problem. Also prescribing too strong drugs.
Then there's this line:
> He was charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—despite not actually attacking anyone with the pocketknife
They add "despite not actually attacking anyone with the pocketknife". Like that is a necessary thing?
Then on top of this sad social situation we added a gloom & doom pandemic? And thru that we were led by a virologist (not a sociologist).
Here's an appropriate example: Fauci did the commencement speech at Princeton Univ a couple months back. He received a standing ovation. Of course he did...the wealthy / elites had been otherwise spared of significant short and long term damage. But that small group is an exception, and certainly not the majority. Yet they continue to remain ignorant of the realities of the world outside their bubble.
Long to short, when are we going to look in the mirror and ask:
- What about collateral damage?
- We were at war (with Covid) and evey war has collateral damage, yet we refuse to look, to ask. Why is that?
[1] drugs aren't a factor, it's the courts?? That's absurd.
> I took the opinion that the cost to society was greater from the consequences of not moving these cases and keeping the courtroom locked down too long than from an outbreak of COVID
The Atlantic is acting as if it has played no role in the lawless society that liberals created with their own activism. Shutdown of the court system doesn't matter when criminals aren't arrested. Forget about tried and true policing strategies, too.
This article suffers from a credulous belief in the efficacy of criminal courts which, in addition to not being borne out by any data, is harmful and regressive. I am disappointed that it has a Pro Publica byline and I wonder how that happened.
First of all, criminal courts do not (and are not supposed to) lower crime. In their current form, the criminal courts are a principal agent of mass incarceration. Their existence perpetuates the social stratification and economic disparities created by chattel slavery.
In law school, they used to teach that criminal punishment has four fundamental rationale: retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Of those, deterrence has long been considered debunked. There's some debate about it, but here's the rub: the debate usually involves a researcher claiming that very short sentences or non-incarceration outcomes (like mandatory engagement of services) can lower recidivism. I'm not aware of anyone seriously arguing in the 21st century that violent crime sentencing has a material deterrent effect.
Even if deterrence is wholly debunked, it's not surprising that folks like judges and prosecutors constantly cite it because it's the only rationale which supports the false narrative that criminal prosecution makes society safer. That narrative has been a key strategy in mobilizing votes for those officials, who are usually elected in contests with very low voter turnout.
Yet this is a whole article about "the violent crime wave" and the only primary source cited is Mark Kleiman, who was a vocal advocate for alternatives to incarceration (and against long prison sentences), but also whose primary work was about marijuana anyway. Everyone else is a stakeholder who has interest in keeping courts open and getting them "back to normal" rather than reconsidering the system.
To reframe this article honestly, we should look to the quotation from the Seattle public defender, who said that the solution is actually to charge fewer crimes. The hook the reporter uses is the story of a man who was arrested for armed robbery, a felony that carries a nine year prison sentence, and incarcerated pretrial. Then he was murdered by another incarcerated person.
This man never should have been charged with armed robbery--it was a stretch given the facts. The way to prevent this crime would be to have offered him substance abuse, housing, and/or employment assistance before he resorted to desperation. Once he was arrested and charged, the government had a duty to keep him safe. During the pandemic, all jailers have known that they cannot keep incarcerated people safe, but they largely have not consented to or allowed release for both political and existential reasons. Therefore, to blame here are:
1) The state for not funding basic services,
2) The prosecutor for charging a felony and arguing for detention,
3) The judge for allowing detention while knowing the prisons are unsafe,
4) The sheriff for architecting deadly confinement conditions in the pandemic,
5) The Atlantic (which never seems to know better) and Pro Publica (which really should) for printing this piss-poor article.
It's also worth mentioning that court delay is the norm, rather than some artifact of the pandemic. The article imagines a prior state in which people had confidence they would be swiftly brought to trial, but that's never been true in the modern age. It's a canard. It is true that court delays increased in the pandemic, but irresponsible in the extreme to draw a causal link with the increase in murders and other violent crime during the pandemic.
What if: the 'American Dream' was achievable by all when playing by the rules? Owning a home near your job, settling down with a family, having a good life.
Rather than maximum value extraction from everyone under the upper crust like we're trying to approach a dystopia.
I worked in car sales for a long time. Basically every above average salesperson, and every mechanic over 26, owned their own home. In California.
While it's probably not possible to own your own how doing every and any job, it's not like that was possible throughout history either. But if you do something at all specialized beyond just providing the lowest of manual labor, you can usually get a home.
I also know the construction industry well. You can glue tile to the floor, or screw cabinets to a wall, and own your own home pretty quickly.
If mechanics and slightly skilled manual labors can own homes in California, is there really a problem?
I think the timeframe on this matters a lot. 20 years ago, absolutely. 10 years ago during the dip after the last crash, sure. But right now? I don’t think so.
You just named two of the largest industries in the nation. Cumulatively probably something like 10% of GDP is driven by automobiles and construction. Of course there is ample opportunity.
But also 10% of GDP doesn't mean 10% of citizens are employed in those industries. Likely it is less than 10% of the population.
I think your anecdotes do not generalize to the population.
Glad you added more to that comment. I have a personal belief that "owner builder" is going to be something you're going to hear about more and more.
People that are less fortunate are going to start getting investment together to buy raw land, build a house and sell it for upwards of the salary of an AI developer at Google.
This is something people can get started on literally tomorrow.
How do they certify that the homes are built according to the code? They do not seem to be licensed contractors or something, getting that license is not that cheap and fast, and you need quite several for a house.
You can live in a structure which is not certified as meeting the code's requirements. But selling it would be hard.
you can't get past permits and inspections without building to code. the main builder does not need to be a GC or have any kind of contractor license what-so-ever. There are still some pesky laws in the way, but it can be overcome with some fixes to red tape.
The California Building Code [1] consists of 12 volumes, the second of which (based on the International Building Codes) is 766 pages long. It is available for purchase for about $1200, or you can pay $237/year for a subscription. Despite having the force of law, it is copyrighted, which means that free copies (which do exist, floating around on the net) are technically illegal.
Houses in California cost more than a Google AI developer's salary because you have to know more than a Google AI developer to build them.
That's the link I used to learn it, it's available online from that link for free. If you look at the CRC - it's an easy read, designed that way on purpose. Chapters are streamlined and much shorter, reads much faster. It's not quite a how-to guide there's definitely some challenges.
Materials costs have come down but are still rough. Big builders get the priority of supply too. People want to drive less and work from home but you can't buy "raw land" with anything to walk to or any kind of internet speed.
That's an interesting idea. Much like how China develops cities first, then moves people into them later, you seem to be suggesting individuals could build cheap houses on cheap land to incentivize infrastructure building toward and outward from new construction.
I don't think the economics work out here for the "less fortunate" because there is a certain minimum threshold of time-plus-money necessary to start this process, and I think without detailed planning provisions it will end up as worse-than-useless sprawl, but it's something to build on, if you'll excuse the pun.
Definitely will be worked out, and I wouldn't be surprised if a startup shows up to get people motivated (with advice, resources and planning assistance) and help them find investment.
You want to replace qualified with unqualified labor. That's not going to be competitive, or let alone possible due to the code violations that a bunch of untrained guys will inevitably produce.
Everyone needs shelter, sure. But just because Malibu is nice doesn't mean I can just show up there and expect a place to live while doing the most basic of jobs. You can extrapolate this to any town that doesn't fit the budget. You can get a studio in Merced, CA for $600 a month.
And we're not even talking about shelter. We're talking about owning a piece of the earth and having dozens of other humans build you a shelter, and then letting you sell it one day. Making other humans build you a home probably isn't going to ever be so cheap that everyone could just buy their own. That's why people live with family or friends or work to learn skills beyond minimum wage.
> I also know the construction industry well. You can glue tile to the floor, or screw cabinets to a wall, and own your own home pretty quickly.
You need land to construct a home on in the first place, and land prices have exploded over the last decades fueled by insane amounts of cheap dumb investment capital.
> Criminologists have offered several explanations for the increase, including the rise in gun sales early in the pandemic, changes in police behavior following the protests over the murder of George Floyd, and the social disruptions caused by closures of schools and interruptions in social services. But many people who work in criminal justice are zeroing in on another possible factor—the extended shutdown of so much of the court system, the institution at the heart of public order.
Why is there not a single mention of capitalist causes in the entire article?
- Rents (and real estate purchase prices) have gone through the roof over the last decades
- Cost of living (stuff like electricity, gas, gasoline, internet, groceries, basic food) has gone up as well and all but exploded during the last few months following the Ukraine invasion
- meanwhile, for an awful lot of people on the lower rungs of society, wages haven't been going up. Minimum wages have been stuck for years, and the "great resignation" may be a good meme and a desperately needed improvement for millions of people, but still many many more millions of people are stuck in exploitative shit jobs
- in parts of the country that have been left to rot by uncaring politicians, people are turning to drugs to self-medicate the sheer stress that living on the streets or without meaningful perspective in life brings with it
When people are forced to turn to crime, particularly small scale crime such as stealing food, to survive (or to fund their drug addiction), well... they will turn to crime.
Given the number of social services and amount of support available, I highly doubt that even a sizeable minority of these crimes are survival-related.
Availability != accessibility. Many of the support mechanisms that are available by law are inaccessible in practice:
- they require endless hoops to jump through (requirements for ID cards, citizenship, proving X years of residence in state/county or detailed financial or employment history when people often don't have the physical records any more)
- they require a bank account or a postal address (which is often hard to meet for homeless or the unbanked)
- they require a computer to fill out the application, excluding the elderly and analphabets without a support network like friends or family that help out
- require personal presence for the application at times where normal people have to work or at a place that cannot be reached by public transport
- the application processing takes many months, which leads to people not applying in the first place because why put in the effort if it will be in vain anyway
- successfully applying for the benefits prevents them from rising up in their jobs ("welfare cliff")
- successfully obtaining mental health care diagnosis and help prevents people from certain jobs or insurance
The system is set up in this perverted way so that politicians can say when faced with public pressure that there is a system in place, but don't have to actually set aside the money that it would cost to serve everyone who's theoretically eligible.
As a result, people turn to easier forms of making money instead: undocumented exploitative labor, prostitution or crime. And the latter two are a permanent source to feed the prison-industrial complex - it has been noted that should the cheap prison/slave labor go away, entire cities would collapse [1].
It's hard to qualify the statement nationally, but I could provide just one example of his statement being correct.
Chesa Boudin was the District Attorney for San Francisco, until his recall recently. He ran on a platform of reducing charge rates for many types of crimes. Under his watch, charge rates for DUI, hit-and-run, burglary, theft, weapons related crimes, and assault have decreased; sometimes significantly. Here are some quotes from Boudin:
“We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes."
“[we will] shift our focus to . . . addressing root causes of crime.”
“Jails do nothing to treat the root cause of crime,”
“The challenge going forward,” said Boudin in 2019, “is how do we close a jail?”
George Soros has a very clear political ideology. He has not been shy about his desire to elect left leaning Democrat candidates with similar views across the U.S. In just this instance, Soros publicly supported Boudin's candidacy; donating more than $1 million: https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/05/29/soros-backe...
For the record, I find the "I stubbed my toe, thanks Soros" meme a little trite too. But it's no conspiracy that Soros has been supporting leaders like Boudin across the nation. That's not a conspiracy. It's public record. And it's not conspiracy that Boudin and many other leaders have run on platforms of being softer on crime. Especially "victimless" and "quality of life" crimes, in addition to their support of movements like "defund the police." Their records are public and they show consistent decline in charge rates. Whether one supports this action or not, those are the facts.
Boudin tenure was 2 years. Do you really think sociatal effects like this crimewave can occure because of the actions of a single officer in two years?
Wouldn't a global pandemic that severely effected the economy in a country that hates socialism where huge swathes of the population don't have functioning support systems could be factors that pretty much explain away[1] Boudin's and Soros influence?
I referenced only the charge rate. That is, of people who are arrested for certain crimes, how many did Boudin and his team choose to prosecute. This does not include the absolute number of crimes committed. For reference, charge rate for certain crimes like rape went up. He specifically mentioned rape and other crime to media and said he would prosecute these kinds of crimes more, even if the chance of conviction was low. So it wasn't due to a lack of resources. Boudin simply choose to charge certain crimes less, and others more.
Interesting, I was promised that a world without law enforcement was some kind of utopia where everone would get together just fine...
It's perfectly fine to complain about police brutality. But it's almost undestandable when you know what kind of crap they have to deal with daily (as exemplified by TFA). It gets old. No surprise only the ones with too thick skin keep on.
And make no mistake, the ones more affected by common criminals are the people with lower incomes. They're the ones that have to use public transport (in some places, of course), go to the sketchy shops in food deserts, where the loss of a vehicle or a phone can be catastrophic, etc
> I was promised that a world without law enforcement was some kind of utopia where everone would get together just fine...
This sounds like hyperbole, although there are some libertarians, especially anarcho-capitalists, who would believe so.
> the ones more affected by common criminals are the people with lower incomes
I'm inclined to agree with this, but it is also true that law enforcement, as a whole, tends to provide better service to higher earners than anyone else.
