On 2023-05-22 11:35 a.m., Johnny1A wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:30:27 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 May 2023 21:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
>> <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:23:04?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:12:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 9 May 2023 08:21:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some "sentences" are nothing more than a cruel joke at least from the
>>>>>>> point of view of the victim - and that point is often made after the
>>>>>>> "sentence".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing that is often used in Canada is "restorative justice"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Restorative Justice is a common feature in sentencing in my US jurisdiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, it's often used as a "get out of jail free" card which is
>>>>> why I >don't< support it financially in our community despite several
>>>>> fundraising attempts to get me to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it has any value at all for either repeat offenders or
>>>>> violent crimes and at least in our area it's been used with both.
>>>>>
>>>>> This (in Canada at least) is especially true of aboriginal offenders
>>>>> in cases not involving aboriginal victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> I _would_ support increased funding for remand to mental health
>>>>> facilities at bail hearing where deemed appropriate and also for
>>>>> incarceration of repeat offenders charged with violent crimes when
>>>>> they have a record of previous violent crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that I expect any woke government to agree to that but I do feel
>>>>> in repeat offender cases the right of the public to protection
>>>>> outranks the right of the offender to bail.
>>>> Unless by "woke" you mean "composed of African-Americans who are aware
>>>> of their surroundings", your usage has no actual meaning and is merely
>>>> a Republican slur.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Dead wrong.
>>>
>>> 'Woke' is nothing new. They used to call it 'political correctness'. It's gone by a lot of names. It amounts to the strong social-left bias in most of the current-day Western entertainment and educational classes. It's the tendency to treat those views as if they were the majority default, in defiance of the obvious reality that they are not. It goes back decades.
>> Why, yes, "woke" does go back decades.
>>
>> As meaning "aware of your surroundings".
>>
>> It is /not/ "political correctness". Although God knows we could use a
>> different term for at least the more extreme forms of that affliction.
>> "Brights" seemed like a promising choice, but it apparently never
>> gained traction, even as a form of self-satire (which it was).
>>
>> It is a Republican smear word, used only because, being a four-letter
>> word, they can make it sound nasty. They have no idea what it means.
>
> It means the tendency of the educational and entertainment media and groups to treat social liberalism as the cultural default. It means political correctness. The claim that it it's just a slur is Democratic spin. They know _exactly_ what it means, as do the people saying it, but they don't like it. Just as 'political correctness' became a negative identifier, woke is following. Same reason they switched from 'racist' to 'white supremacist', and now that too is losing it's power from misapplication.

I have never once seen woke used as anything other than a insult,
usually applied to giving acting jobs to women and black men.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>How do you define "few"?
>
>There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>involved.

You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.

The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
action will be needed.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
> >>Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
> >>millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
> >>bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
> >>they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
> >>suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
> >
> >(Hal Heydt)
> >How do you define "few"?
> >
> >There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
> >sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
> >involved.
>
> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>
> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
> action will be needed.

You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
"filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>
>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>> involved.
>>
>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>
>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>> action will be needed.
>
> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>
Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2023-04-29, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>>
>>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>>> involved.
>>>
>>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>>
>>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>>> action will be needed.
>>
>> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
>> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
>> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
>> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>>
> Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.

When you have DA's like Bragg who campaigned on not prosecuting petty
crimes, and who issued a memo to his prosecutors the first week in office
telling them not to ask for prison time for anything except murder, rape,
serious financial fraud, and mandatory under the law prison cases, the
statistics are going to change.

He claimed his office doesn't have the resources to prosecute anything
but serious crimes!

But in general the statistics on crimes charged and crimes convicted
are basically impossible to conclude much from. Well over 90% of all
cases are settled by plea bargaining (98% of federal cases). Ie, the
defendent is pleading guilty to a lesser charge than they were
arrested for over 90% of the time. But our court system would grind
to a halt if every legitimate and provable case went through it and
everybody involved knows that.

Chris

On 4/29/2023 4:55 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-04-29, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>>>> involved.
>>>>
>>>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>>>
>>>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>>>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>>>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>>>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>>>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>>>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>>>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>>>> action will be needed.
>>>
>>> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
>>> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
>>> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
>>> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>>>
>> Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.
>
> When you have DA's like Bragg who campaigned on not prosecuting petty
> crimes, and who issued a memo to his prosecutors the first week in office
> telling them not to ask for prison time for anything except murder, rape,
> serious financial fraud, and mandatory under the law prison cases, the
> statistics are going to change.
>
> He claimed his office doesn't have the resources to prosecute anything
> but serious crimes!
>
> But in general the statistics on crimes charged and crimes convicted
> are basically impossible to conclude much from. Well over 90% of all
> cases are settled by plea bargaining (98% of federal cases). Ie, the
> defendent is pleading guilty to a lesser charge than they were
> arrested for over 90% of the time. But our court system would grind
> to a halt if every legitimate and provable case went through it and
> everybody involved knows that.
>
When I said filtering out cases not provable I meant no charges being
filed because the DA's office concludes that they cannot prove BRD the
charges the LEO submitted. They may file other charges that they think
they can prove BRD based on the evidence available. FYI, I am currently
working in a DA's Office compiling statistics....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 29 Apr 2023 23:55:13 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2023-04-29, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>>>> involved.
>>>>
>>>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>>>
>>>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>>>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>>>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>>>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>>>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>>>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>>>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>>>> action will be needed.
>>>
>>> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
>>> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
>>> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
>>> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>>>
>> Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.
>
>When you have DA's like Bragg who campaigned on not prosecuting petty
>crimes, and who issued a memo to his prosecutors the first week in office
>telling them not to ask for prison time for anything except murder, rape,
>serious financial fraud, and mandatory under the law prison cases, the
>statistics are going to change.
>
>He claimed his office doesn't have the resources to prosecute anything
>but serious crimes!
>
>But in general the statistics on crimes charged and crimes convicted
>are basically impossible to conclude much from. Well over 90% of all
>cases are settled by plea bargaining (98% of federal cases). Ie, the
>defendent is pleading guilty to a lesser charge than they were
>arrested for over 90% of the time. But our court system would grind
>to a halt if every legitimate and provable case went through it and
>everybody involved knows that.

More evasion.

Looking at /charges filed/ includes all the attempted distractors in
your statement. And my original was intended to make it clear that by
"conviction" something much broader than just a jury verdict was
meant.

Just keep wriggling, little worm.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2023-04-30, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/2023 4:55 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-04-29, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>>>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>>>>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>>>>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>>>>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>>>>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>>>>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>>>>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>>>>> action will be needed.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
>>>> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
>>>> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
>>>> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>>>>
>>> Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.
>>
>> When you have DA's like Bragg who campaigned on not prosecuting petty
>> crimes, and who issued a memo to his prosecutors the first week in office
>> telling them not to ask for prison time for anything except murder, rape,
>> serious financial fraud, and mandatory under the law prison cases, the
>> statistics are going to change.
>>
>> He claimed his office doesn't have the resources to prosecute anything
>> but serious crimes!
>>
>> But in general the statistics on crimes charged and crimes convicted
>> are basically impossible to conclude much from. Well over 90% of all
>> cases are settled by plea bargaining (98% of federal cases). Ie, the
>> defendent is pleading guilty to a lesser charge than they were
>> arrested for over 90% of the time. But our court system would grind
>> to a halt if every legitimate and provable case went through it and
>> everybody involved knows that.
>>
> When I said filtering out cases not provable I meant no charges being
> filed because the DA's office concludes that they cannot prove BRD the
> charges the LEO submitted. They may file other charges that they think
> they can prove BRD based on the evidence available. FYI, I am currently
> working in a DA's Office compiling statistics....

Yes, absolutely that happens. It's a very legitimate, important part of
a DA's activities. But the number of times that happens pales in
comparison to the number of plea bargains.

And the fact that it happens does not imply that the defendent is
innocent (though the probability of innocence is greater.)

Chris

On 2023-04-30, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2023 23:55:13 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2023-04-29, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>>>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>>>>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>>>>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>>>>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>>>>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>>>>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>>>>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>>>>> action will be needed.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
>>>> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
>>>> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
>>>> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>>>>
>>> Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.
>>
>>When you have DA's like Bragg who campaigned on not prosecuting petty
>>crimes, and who issued a memo to his prosecutors the first week in office
>>telling them not to ask for prison time for anything except murder, rape,
>>serious financial fraud, and mandatory under the law prison cases, the
>>statistics are going to change.
>>
>>He claimed his office doesn't have the resources to prosecute anything
>>but serious crimes!
>>
>>But in general the statistics on crimes charged and crimes convicted
>>are basically impossible to conclude much from. Well over 90% of all
>>cases are settled by plea bargaining (98% of federal cases). Ie, the
>>defendent is pleading guilty to a lesser charge than they were
>>arrested for over 90% of the time. But our court system would grind
>>to a halt if every legitimate and provable case went through it and
>>everybody involved knows that.
>
> More evasion.
>
> Looking at /charges filed/ includes all the attempted distractors in
> your statement. And my original was intended to make it clear that by
> "conviction" something much broader than just a jury verdict was
> meant.
>
> Just keep wriggling, little worm.

*I* am the one evading???? I wrote a substantive reply (3 paragraphs
including a request) to your original statement; you completely
ignored it. I figured "Fine, you didn't want to have a discussion with
me", and went on to discuss related tangents with others. From my
perspective *you* are the one who abandoned your original topic, not me.
I fail to see why you need to insult me.

So addressing your topic, from a local perspective the Washington Post
often reports both arrests and convictions of local major crime
perpetrators. The arrests are always substantially higher than the
convictions (I suspect that's why the Post considers them important
and reports them.) In 2015 prosecutors declined to prosecute over 35%
of arrests, and the figures have steadily gotten worse since then.
Last year prosecutors declined 67% of arrests (DC has problems!),
dropping almost all gun possession, drug possession and misdemeanor
arrests. When so much depends on prosecutor resources and whims,
we've lost almost all ability to draw conclusions of the sort you want
to about police and the initial arrest.

Another local anecdote (anecdotes don't prove much, but they show
the difficulties in relying on just statistics.) A few years back
it was discovered that DC police were arresting Blacks substantially
more often than Whites for public pot smoking (private pot smoking
was legal then). Aha, racist police! Well, no, when this was
investigated the problem was that Blacks lived in public housing
at a substantially higher rate than Whites, and if you smoke pot in
public housing you will get evicted (Federal law). So Blacks couldn't
smoke at home like Whites and were in fact smoking more in public.
(The police department then told its officers to stop arresting
anyone for public smoking and just issue citations.)

Things aren't as simple as you claim.

Chris

On 30 Apr 2023 21:36:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2023-04-30, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2023 23:55:13 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2023-04-29, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>>>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>>>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>>>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>>>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>>>>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>>>>>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>>>>>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>>>>>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>>>>>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>>>>>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>>>>>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>>>>>> action will be needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
>>>>> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
>>>>> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
>>>>> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>>>>>
>>>> Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.
>>>
>>>When you have DA's like Bragg who campaigned on not prosecuting petty
>>>crimes, and who issued a memo to his prosecutors the first week in office
>>>telling them not to ask for prison time for anything except murder, rape,
>>>serious financial fraud, and mandatory under the law prison cases, the
>>>statistics are going to change.
>>>
>>>He claimed his office doesn't have the resources to prosecute anything
>>>but serious crimes!
>>>
>>>But in general the statistics on crimes charged and crimes convicted
>>>are basically impossible to conclude much from. Well over 90% of all
>>>cases are settled by plea bargaining (98% of federal cases). Ie, the
>>>defendent is pleading guilty to a lesser charge than they were
>>>arrested for over 90% of the time. But our court system would grind
>>>to a halt if every legitimate and provable case went through it and
>>>everybody involved knows that.
>>
>> More evasion.
>>
>> Looking at /charges filed/ includes all the attempted distractors in
>> your statement. And my original was intended to make it clear that by
>> "conviction" something much broader than just a jury verdict was
>> meant.
>>
>> Just keep wriggling, little worm.
>
>*I* am the one evading???? I wrote a substantive reply (3 paragraphs
>including a request) to your original statement; you completely
>ignored it. I figured "Fine, you didn't want to have a discussion with
>me", and went on to discuss related tangents with others. From my
>perspective *you* are the one who abandoned your original topic, not me.
>I fail to see why you need to insult me.

I ignored your tripe because it was just a random accumulation of
excuses for racism. I treated it as it deserved.

So, yes, everything you have said on this topic is an evasion.

Keep wriggling, little worm.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2023-05-01, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2023 21:36:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2023-04-30, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 29 Apr 2023 23:55:13 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2023-04-29, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:59 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>> In article <1pcq4idepj1p8qjqqt01trj6cj0n55ggd3@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:36:46 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <kb23qhF2fioU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, police make mistakes, but very few of them considering the
>>>>>>>>> millions of interactions they have daily. Yes, there are police
>>>>>>>>> bigots, but again seemingly few of them given the news attention
>>>>>>>>> they get when discovered. Your claims of racist policing are very
>>>>>>>>> suspect (please define "racist" for me.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>> How do you define "few"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a current local furor in Antioch, CA over racist texts
>>>>>>>> sent by police officers. Something like half the entire force is
>>>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are responding to what is, essentially, an evasion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The /correct/ measure in the case cited (an AI biased because it
>>>>>>> considered drug-related arrests) would be to investigate what
>>>>>>> percentage of drug-related arrests result in charges filed. If certain
>>>>>>> groups have a much lower percentage than others (that is, if a much
>>>>>>> higher percentage of their drug-related arrests evaporate when someone
>>>>>>> other than the arresting officer looks at the situation), then clearly
>>>>>>> something other than proper police work is going on and corrective
>>>>>>> action will be needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be assuming that there is only 1 reason for a disconnect
>>>>>> between arrests and charges being filed. I can think of a second; the
>>>>>> charges are filed by the prosecutor office after all and they might be
>>>>>> "filtering" the cases using inappropriate criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or filtering out the cases referred that aren't actually provable.
>>>>
>>>>When you have DA's like Bragg who campaigned on not prosecuting petty
>>>>crimes, and who issued a memo to his prosecutors the first week in office
>>>>telling them not to ask for prison time for anything except murder, rape,
>>>>serious financial fraud, and mandatory under the law prison cases, the
>>>>statistics are going to change.
>>>>
>>>>He claimed his office doesn't have the resources to prosecute anything
>>>>but serious crimes!
>>>>
>>>>But in general the statistics on crimes charged and crimes convicted
>>>>are basically impossible to conclude much from. Well over 90% of all
>>>>cases are settled by plea bargaining (98% of federal cases). Ie, the
>>>>defendent is pleading guilty to a lesser charge than they were
>>>>arrested for over 90% of the time. But our court system would grind
>>>>to a halt if every legitimate and provable case went through it and
>>>>everybody involved knows that.
>>>
>>> More evasion.
>>>
>>> Looking at /charges filed/ includes all the attempted distractors in
>>> your statement. And my original was intended to make it clear that by
>>> "conviction" something much broader than just a jury verdict was
>>> meant.
>>>
>>> Just keep wriggling, little worm.
>>
>>*I* am the one evading???? I wrote a substantive reply (3 paragraphs
>>including a request) to your original statement; you completely
>>ignored it. I figured "Fine, you didn't want to have a discussion with
>>me", and went on to discuss related tangents with others. From my
>>perspective *you* are the one who abandoned your original topic, not me.
>>I fail to see why you need to insult me.
>
>
> I ignored your tripe because it was just a random accumulation of
> excuses for racism. I treated it as it deserved.
>
> So, yes, everything you have said on this topic is an evasion.
>
> Keep wriggling, little worm.

Oh well, looks like I was right in the first place; you aren't interested
in having a discussion. (Even going so far as to snip the rest of my post
that refutes your claim???)

Chris

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:41:19 AM UTC+10, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
> When I said filtering out cases not provable I meant no charges being
> filed because the DA's office concludes that they cannot prove BRD the
> charges the LEO submitted. They may file other charges that they think
> they can prove BRD based on the evidence available. FYI, I am currently
> working in a DA's Office compiling statistics....

That depends on the DA's office's word
Which is probably a much different assessment between a rich white kid and a poor black kid

(Not to mention that police testimony is highly likely to result in a conviction even if the cop has previously of lied under oath)

On 5/8/2023 12:03 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:41:19 AM UTC+10, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>> When I said filtering out cases not provable I meant no charges being
>> filed because the DA's office concludes that they cannot prove BRD the
>> charges the LEO submitted. They may file other charges that they think
>> they can prove BRD based on the evidence available. FYI, I am currently
>> working in a DA's Office compiling statistics....
>
> That depends on the DA's office's word
> Which is probably a much different assessment between a rich white kid and a poor black kid
>
> (Not to mention that police testimony is highly likely to result in a conviction even if the cop has previously of lied under oath)

Determining those is one of the reasons I have a job.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 30 Apr 2023 18:32:34 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>Yes, absolutely that happens. It's a very legitimate, important part of
>a DA's activities. But the number of times that happens pales in
>comparison to the number of plea bargains.
>
>And the fact that it happens does not imply that the defendent is
>innocent (though the probability of innocence is greater.)
>
In a plea bargain the guilty plea is in response to a lesser offence
which almost always implies a lesser often non-custodial sentence.

Some "sentences" are nothing more than a cruel joke at least from the
point of view of the victim - and that point is often made after the
"sentence".

One thing that is often used in Canada is "restorative justice" which
is often used NOT with the consent of the victim particularly in cases
when the perpetrator is either of native ancestry or someone just
beyong the juvenile system. It is OFTEN used in inappropriate contexts
which is why while I have a friend who is a big fan of "RJ" and since
until my recent retirement (I had a craft store of a sort that while
not specifically aimed at aboriginal customers involved goods of
interest to them) was often trying to get my support for causes
promoting "RJ" benefits nearly all of which I ignored.

Bottom line is that I object to it being used in situations where both
parties are NOT on board with its use - particularly when it's a
repeat offender. Too often it's a 'get out of jail free' card where
the sentence is usually promotion with both (a) indifferent followup
as to whether probation was completed and (b) often used either by
charges involving repeat offenders and/or charges involving violence
though not of a lethal nature. (My view being that 'minor violence' is
NOT minor when the perpetrator as a repeat record of "minor" violence
since he or she doesn't get the message that that kind of behaviour is
not only unacceptable but grossly unacceptable and SHOULD involve a
significant custodial sentence with all that means to the
perpetrator's life going forward - in other words behaviour decent
people do not consider decent.

In other words, if you repeatedly commit violence while intoxicated
and you don't undergo detox - the problem's with you and not your
victim and you have no business walking free.

My friend is a very good guy but he has a blind spot which I don't
want to encourage - and it's clear he has no intention of listening to
those who disagree with him on this point.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:43:51 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Looking at /charges filed/ includes all the attempted distractors in
>your statement. And my original was intended to make it clear that by
>"conviction" something much broader than just a jury verdict was
>meant.
>
Absolutely - if you plead guilty and get a "cream puff" sentence from
the judge it's legitimate for observers to question whether justice
was served. Particularly when it's your 5th or 6th conviction on
similar charges.

On 5/9/2023 1:07 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2023 18:32:34 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, absolutely that happens. It's a very legitimate, important part of
>> a DA's activities. But the number of times that happens pales in
>> comparison to the number of plea bargains.
>>
>> And the fact that it happens does not imply that the defendent is
>> innocent (though the probability of innocence is greater.)
>>
> In a plea bargain the guilty plea is in response to a lesser offence
> which almost always implies a lesser often non-custodial sentence.
>
I've already mentioned the Harvey Waiver.

> Some "sentences" are nothing more than a cruel joke at least from the
> point of view of the victim - and that point is often made after the
> "sentence".
>
> One thing that is often used in Canada is "restorative justice"

Restorative Justice is a common feature in sentencing in my US jurisdiction.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tue, 09 May 2023 01:09:20 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:43:51 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Looking at /charges filed/ includes all the attempted distractors in
>>your statement. And my original was intended to make it clear that by
>>"conviction" something much broader than just a jury verdict was
>>meant.
>>
>Absolutely - if you plead guilty and get a "cream puff" sentence from
>the judge it's legitimate for observers to question whether justice
>was served. Particularly when it's your 5th or 6th conviction on
>similar charges.

Which has nothing to do with my suggestion that using /charges filed/
(including all distractors) or /convictions/ (including all
distractors) rather than /arrests/ might produce an AI that is less
obviously biased than the one that was being used by weeding out the
arrests that vanish as soon as they are reviewed by someone other than
the arresting officer.

But that presupposes where the problem is. Determining where the
problem is matters, provided an actual solution is desired. This could
be a prosecutors-won't-charge problem, although those are harder to
find than police-making-stuff-up problems.

Also, this does not need to approached as discrimination. The /time/
spent making the arrests/charging decisions is time for which the
police/prosectors are being /paid/ and, if excessive, that /alone/ is
reason enough to correct the situation.

So part of the solution is figuring out what "excessive" means in this
context.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 9 May 2023 08:21:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>> Some "sentences" are nothing more than a cruel joke at least from the
>> point of view of the victim - and that point is often made after the
>> "sentence".
>>
>> One thing that is often used in Canada is "restorative justice"
>
>Restorative Justice is a common feature in sentencing in my US jurisdiction.

That said, it's often used as a "get out of jail free" card which is
why I >don't< support it financially in our community despite several
fundraising attempts to get me to do so.

I don't think it has any value at all for either repeat offenders or
violent crimes and at least in our area it's been used with both.

This (in Canada at least) is especially true of aboriginal offenders
in cases not involving aboriginal victims.

I _would_ support increased funding for remand to mental health
facilities at bail hearing where deemed appropriate and also for
incarceration of repeat offenders charged with violent crimes when
they have a record of previous violent crimes.

Not that I expect any woke government to agree to that but I do feel
in repeat offender cases the right of the public to protection
outranks the right of the offender to bail.

On Tue, 09 May 2023 08:42:06 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Which has nothing to do with my suggestion that using /charges filed/
>(including all distractors) or /convictions/ (including all
>distractors) rather than /arrests/ might produce an AI that is less
>obviously biased than the one that was being used by weeding out the
>arrests that vanish as soon as they are reviewed by someone other than
>the arresting officer.
>
I would agree - if the prosecutor doesn't think the facts of the case
justify charges why include that information in statistics?

On 5/16/2023 12:12 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2023 08:21:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> Some "sentences" are nothing more than a cruel joke at least from the
>>> point of view of the victim - and that point is often made after the
>>> "sentence".
>>>
>>> One thing that is often used in Canada is "restorative justice"
>>
>> Restorative Justice is a common feature in sentencing in my US jurisdiction.
>
> That said, it's often used as a "get out of jail free" card which is
> why I >don't< support it financially in our community despite several
> fundraising attempts to get me to do so.
>
We may be talking about two different kinds of "restorative justice".
At least where I am it is not the sole part of a sentence.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:12:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 May 2023 08:21:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> Some "sentences" are nothing more than a cruel joke at least from the
>>> point of view of the victim - and that point is often made after the
>>> "sentence".
>>>
>>> One thing that is often used in Canada is "restorative justice"
>>
>>Restorative Justice is a common feature in sentencing in my US jurisdiction.
>
>That said, it's often used as a "get out of jail free" card which is
>why I >don't< support it financially in our community despite several
>fundraising attempts to get me to do so.
>
>I don't think it has any value at all for either repeat offenders or
>violent crimes and at least in our area it's been used with both.
>
>This (in Canada at least) is especially true of aboriginal offenders
>in cases not involving aboriginal victims.
>
>I _would_ support increased funding for remand to mental health
>facilities at bail hearing where deemed appropriate and also for
>incarceration of repeat offenders charged with violent crimes when
>they have a record of previous violent crimes.
>
>Not that I expect any woke government to agree to that but I do feel
>in repeat offender cases the right of the public to protection
>outranks the right of the offender to bail.

Unless by "woke" you mean "composed of African-Americans who are aware
of their surroundings", your usage has no actual meaning and is merely
a Republican slur.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 17 May 2023 08:21:16 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>Not that I expect any woke government to agree to that but I do feel
>>in repeat offender cases the right of the public to protection
>>outranks the right of the offender to bail.
>
>Unless by "woke" you mean "composed of African-Americans who are aware
>of their surroundings", your usage has no actual meaning and is merely
>a Republican slur.

As I >did< identify myself as a Canadian you can reasonably assume the
'woke government' I referred to was that led by Justin Trudeau who has
seldom found a left wing cause he didn't like.

If you think of Bernie Sanders at half the age and half the IQ you'd
probably be thinking of JT though to really seal the deal you'd have
in include a famous name and inherited wealth.

In article <7gvd6ip4lftepkcucc23akauq7uev5iupk@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 May 2023 08:21:16 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Not that I expect any woke government to agree to that but I do feel
>>>in repeat offender cases the right of the public to protection
>>>outranks the right of the offender to bail.
>>
>>Unless by "woke" you mean "composed of African-Americans who are aware
>>of their surroundings", your usage has no actual meaning and is merely
>>a Republican slur.
>
>As I >did< identify myself as a Canadian you can reasonably assume the
>'woke government' I referred to was that led by Justin Trudeau who has
>seldom found a left wing cause he didn't like.
>
>If you think of Bernie Sanders at half the age and half the IQ you'd
>probably be thinking of JT though to really seal the deal you'd have
>in include a famous name and inherited wealth.

And a track record of defeating the ReformaTories, which suggests
dire things about the quality of leader the ReformaTories field
these days. Maybe they can get Joe Clark to come back. Clark at
least once beat a Trudeau.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Thu, 18 May 2023 21:43:40 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 May 2023 08:21:16 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Not that I expect any woke government to agree to that but I do feel
>>>in repeat offender cases the right of the public to protection
>>>outranks the right of the offender to bail.
>>
>>Unless by "woke" you mean "composed of African-Americans who are aware
>>of their surroundings", your usage has no actual meaning and is merely
>>a Republican slur.
>
>As I >did< identify myself as a Canadian you can reasonably assume the
>'woke government' I referred to was that led by Justin Trudeau who has
>seldom found a left wing cause he didn't like.

As I said, there is only one usage of "woke" that is actually
/defined/.

Allow me to also point out that, if you extend the definition to
Trudeau by relaxing the ancestry requirement, you would be saying that
he is aware of his surroundings -- that is, that he is firmly grounded
in reality -- and, since you are clearly using it as a pejorative,
that you prefer gummints that are detached from reality -- Florida,
which has apparently gutted its farming industry and forfeited new
investments/jobs by its biggest employer/taxpayer, being an excellent
example.

>If you think of Bernie Sanders at half the age and half the IQ you'd
>probably be thinking of JT though to really seal the deal you'd have
>in include a famous name and inherited wealth.

That's not "woke", that's "brain-dead". Congratulations on finding
another example of a politician clearly detached from reality.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:12:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 9 May 2023 08:21:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> ><dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Some "sentences" are nothing more than a cruel joke at least from the
> >>> point of view of the victim - and that point is often made after the
> >>> "sentence".
> >>>
> >>> One thing that is often used in Canada is "restorative justice"
> >>
> >>Restorative Justice is a common feature in sentencing in my US jurisdiction.
> >
> >That said, it's often used as a "get out of jail free" card which is
> >why I >don't< support it financially in our community despite several
> >fundraising attempts to get me to do so.
> >
> >I don't think it has any value at all for either repeat offenders or
> >violent crimes and at least in our area it's been used with both.
> >
> >This (in Canada at least) is especially true of aboriginal offenders
> >in cases not involving aboriginal victims.
> >
> >I _would_ support increased funding for remand to mental health
> >facilities at bail hearing where deemed appropriate and also for
> >incarceration of repeat offenders charged with violent crimes when
> >they have a record of previous violent crimes.
> >
> >Not that I expect any woke government to agree to that but I do feel
> >in repeat offender cases the right of the public to protection
> >outranks the right of the offender to bail.
> Unless by "woke" you mean "composed of African-Americans who are aware
> of their surroundings", your usage has no actual meaning and is merely
> a Republican slur.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

'Woke' is nothing new. They used to call it 'political correctness'. It's gone by a lot of names. It amounts to the strong social-left bias in most of the current-day Western entertainment and educational classes. It's the tendency to treat those views as if they were the majority default, in defiance of the obvious reality that they are not. It goes back decades.