Charlottesville riots

[Boss1786]

In Missouri, the judge has to agree in homicide cases. Defendants are frequently better off without a jury if the crime is really violent. That guy Dylann Roof in Charleston wanted to avoid a jury trial, for obvious reasons, but the prosecution forced him to have a jury trial. My point was mostly about the jury make-up in St. Louis city. You're going to have a lot of liberal jurors and a lot of black jurors in St. Louis city. I can't imagine that'd be an easy case for the defense.

Kansas may do this too...I am not sure...my guess would be that the likely hood of appeals would be a consideration of the judge wether to allow a bench over jury

[wufan]

Edit to add: I've seen you mention that taxing the rich harms everyone several times in various forms (you've also mentioned tax cuts for the rich benefits everyone). That's definitely debatable. There is not a consensus on this issue. The actual data shows a relatively weak relationship between tax cuts and economic growth, and you will absolutely increase wealth disparity.

While I have in the past stated that tax cuts for the wealthy can benefit everyone through economic growth, that is not my stance when it comes to income inequality. It too is correct that the data does not correlate well to increased economic growth due to tax cuts on high earners. The data will show different results during different periods leading to poor correlation. That said, my argument against absolute poverty is to grow the private sector economy, and while the wealthy get more wealthy faster, the poor also get more wealthy (albeit slower), therefore cutting taxes is not a solution to address the problem of relative poverty.

For the issue of relative poverty, I would suggest that we implement a plan that increases job opportunity for low income workers in the private sector, rather than a redistributive policy. A redistributive policy will help with income inequality, but with the negative effect of decreasing everyone's ability to accumulate wealth.

[wufan]

Well, I don't know that I would go that far. I certainly think it's a huge impact, and I guess probably the most significant predictor. But I do still think there is significant racism. I still see black people in poverty treated very differently than I see white people in poverty being treated. I was just illustrating that racism still could have been the cause of many of these problems even if it weren't still a problem.



I tend to think we're about to face massive, massive problems as a country. I've completely bought into the idea that automation is going to wipe out millions of jobs. In fact, it has already wiped out huge numbers of jobs. And there are going to always be some jobs that need done, but there is not going to be the abundance of unskilled labor positions that there is currently and that there always has been. And if income inequality is a problem now, it is going to be completely unrecognizable in 50 years. Should we continue to give such huge tax benefits for investing in capital as opposed to labor, wealth will just continue to accumulate.

I don't know what the solution is, but I have mostly begun to think it doesn't make a ton of sense to try to create a system for now. If we were just attempting to solve the problem now, I'd probably radically reform the estate tax system so that we would get rid of generational wealth. I would probably increase capital gains taxes. I would probably add more brackets for income because I just don't see why we can't have different percentages at 750k, 1.5m, 5m, etc. Why do we stop at 400k?

I think we need to think about what the system should look like in 50 years, though. I'm not convinced we will ever again have a system in which every person could actually work, which is really scary to think about. I would want a system that still has incentives in place. I would want it to have an income floor, like a universal basic income. And I would want there to be easy educational opportunities since unskilled labor is going away.

Edit to add: I've seen you mention that taxing the rich harms everyone several times in various forms (you've also mentioned tax cuts for the rich benefits everyone). That's definitely debatable. There is not a consensus on this issue. The actual data shows a relatively weak relationship between tax cuts and economic growth, and you will absolutely increase wealth disparity.

On automation: one way to decrease the amount of automation that occurs is to decrease wages for factory workers. By keeping the wages down, humans are more competitive against robots from a cost perspective. Of course if those people aren't making enough to live on, one could also decrease the minimum wage, thereby decreasing the cost of goods. This would also bring the 10% of unemployable with an IQ of 75 or less into the marketplace. They can competitively do the job at $5/hr that they can't do at $8.

Certainly it's controversial to suggest that, but it is a way to fix the increased automation problem (which is required in many regulated industries).

[WuDrWu]

Recorded: "I'm going to kill that m*****-f*****".

Damning on the surface but put it into context. He was in HSP of a drug dealer. Heat of the moment. You do realize this doesn't happen without the guy dealing drugs, correct?

Cop was carrying a personal AK-47 not authorized by the PD, but evidently not denied, so he could carry that weapon..

Circumstantial. He didn't use it, it's not illegal to own one. Sure the optics are bad, but what if he bought it a month ago and picked it up on his lunch break?

5 shots fired through the window - all hit the suspect.

Police don't fire warning shots. If (and that's a HUGE if I grant you) he thought his life was in danger, he did EXACTLY what his job called for. That's a pretty thin line, don't you think, between doing your job and 1st degree murder?

No fingerprints found on gun in car, but DNA belonging to law enforcement found on it. No doubt beyond suspicious, plus why no gloves, why the trips to and from his car to the suspect/victim's.

Hopefully there's more clarity here at trial.

This could be the most obvious first-degree (pre-meditated) murder charge ever. The officer is recorded saying he's going to kill the victim before the victim is apprehended.17.

Maybe I'm alone, but I don't see how. There is no shooting if the drug dealer doesn't run. That's how it all started. Again, from what I've learned, I think he's guilty of something, but whatever it is, it's not 1st degree murder.

LE tends to be believed in courts, unless the defendant has the funds to hire investigators.

They are believed because they're charged to Protect and Serve and they are the good guys basically all the time and because they are generally believable when compared to criminals like drug dealers.

[Boss1786]

On automation: one way to decrease the amount of automation that occurs is to decrease wages for factory workers. By keeping the wages down, humans are more competitive against robots from a cost perspective. Of course if those people aren't making enough to live on, one could also decrease the minimum wage, thereby decreasing the cost of goods. This would also bring the 10% of unemployable with an IQ of 75 or less into the marketplace. They can competitively do the job at $5/hr that they can't do at $8.

Certainly it's controversial to suggest that, but it is a way to fix the increased automation problem (which is required in many regulated industries).

I am not arguing your theory other than the fact companies will not lower the price of goods. If you lower the cost of production, companies will increase profit margins to pay to investors and invest in market growth.

[jdshock]

On automation: one way to decrease the amount of automation that occurs is to decrease wages for factory workers. By keeping the wages down, humans are more competitive against robots from a cost perspective. Of course if those people aren't making enough to live on, one could also decrease the minimum wage, thereby decreasing the cost of goods. This would also bring the 10% of unemployable with an IQ of 75 or less into the marketplace. They can competitively do the job at $5/hr that they can't do at $8.

Certainly it's controversial to suggest that, but it is a way to fix the increased automation problem (which is required in many regulated industries).

I am of the opinion that decreased wages is a very short-sighted perspective. On top of my belief that it's important that 40 hours a week should be more than enough to support yourself, the policy just delays the inevitable. The whole argument about increased or decreased minimum wage ignores tech increases. Maybe automation is competitive at $11/hour now. Maybe it is competitive at $8/hour within five years. But then it's competitive at $5 within ten years. All of it ignores that the tech is just going to get cheaper.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

it's important that 40 hours a week should be more than enough to support yourself

The lowest paying job (minimum wage) working 40 hrs/wk (not a lot) in America guarantees an above average standard of living as a citizen of Earth in 2017.

I think that is a pretty incredible "floor".

[jdshock]

The lowest paying job (minimum wage) working 40 hrs/wk (not a lot) in America guarantees an above average standard of living as a citizen of Earth in 2017.

I think that is a pretty incredible "floor".

My comment was in the context of a $5/hour minimum wage.

I also never find this argument compelling. That's a pretty low bar if you want to compare minimum standards of living in the United States to every other person on Earth. Compared to developed nations, a $5/hour minimum wage would rank very low: https://www.theatlantic.com/business...obally/279258/

[ShockerPhi]

Damning on the surface but put it into context. He was in HSP of a drug dealer. Heat of the moment. You do realize this doesn't happen without the guy dealing drugs, correct?

I'd be much more willing to dismiss the officer's comments of "I"m gonna kill this guy" if he didn't actually kill the guy after stopping him. The fact is he did just that and that screams pre-meditation. A heat of the moment killing is not justifiable.

If (and that's a HUGE if I grant you) he thought his life was in danger, he did EXACTLY what his job called for.

I agree with this part, but it sounds like this is probably not the case.

There is no shooting if the drug dealer doesn't run. That's how it all started. Again, from what I've learned, I think he's guilty of something, but whatever it is, it's not 1st degree murder.

While true, there should not have been any shooting whatsoever (unless of course the officer's life was in danger). I'm not ok with a police officer who is full of adrenaline deciding that execution is the proper justice for a high speed chase and drug dealing. Leave that to the due process of judges and juries.

[WuDrWu]

I don't really disagree with any of that, and I think I said that earlier. The only thing I was trying to point out was that it didn't rise to the level of 1st degree murder.

I think he's guilty of something. Just a discussion, and my opinion.

[jdshock]

Circumstantial. He didn't use it, it's not illegal to own one. Sure the optics are bad, but what if he bought it a month ago and picked it up on his lunch break?

I actually think this is one of the most interesting arguments in the case. He admitted that he had the AK-47 to protect himself because he was afraid of the types of people he interacted with as a police officer. He said, "I valued the lives of me and other officers more than the policy," so he carried it with him at work.

Which is somewhat interesting, but the really interesting part to me is that the video apparently showed him holding the AK-47 as he approached the victim's car before switching to his department issued weapon. I think this has to be one of the best arguments that it wasn't self-defense.

[jdmee]

I actually think this is one of the most interesting arguments in the case. He admitted that he had the AK-47 to protect himself because he was afraid of the types of people he interacted with as a police officer. He said, "I valued the lives of me and other officers more than the policy," so he carried it with him at work.

Which is somewhat interesting, but the really interesting part to me is that the video apparently showed him holding the AK-47 as he approached the victim's car before switching to his department issued weapon. I think this has to be one of the best arguments that it wasn't self-defense.

This more so than the I am going to kill him statement. If he felt threatened why does he have time to switch weapons.

[SHOXJOCK]

I'd be much more willing to dismiss the officer's comments of "I"m gonna kill this guy" if he didn't actually kill the guy after stopping him. The fact is he did just that and that screams pre-meditation. A heat of the moment killing is not justifiable.



I agree with this part, but it sounds like this is probably not the case.



While true, there should not have been any shooting whatsoever (unless of course the officer's life was in danger). I'm not ok with a police officer who is full of adrenaline deciding that execution is the proper justice for a high speed chase and drug dealing. Leave that to the due process of judges and juries.

"Leave that to the due process of judges and juries." The best advice for both sides. And if you don't like the outcome don't burn down your local QT. They will not rebuild.

[wufan]

I am not arguing your theory other than the fact companies will not lower the price of goods. If you lower the cost of production, companies will increase profit margins to pay to investors and invest in market growth.

That's certainly a potential outcome that would have to be mitigated.

[wufan]

I am of the opinion that decreased wages is a very short-sighted perspective. On top of my belief that it's important that 40 hours a week should be more than enough to support yourself, the policy just delays the inevitable. The whole argument about increased or decreased minimum wage ignores tech increases. Maybe automation is competitive at $11/hour now. Maybe it is competitive at $8/hour within five years. But then it's competitive at $5 within ten years. All of it ignores that the tech is just going to get cheaper.

I will start by saying my proposed fix isn't a lock to fix anything, and should it go forward, there are many intricacies that would need to be looked at much more closely. With that said, wouldn't the cheaper tech offset the lost lower end jobs with higher paid tech jobs? Maybe it's not enough to offset. What about increased population? Wouldn't that help as well? Is it possible we could decrease the cost of energy to help with lower wages?

On the 40 hour a week job, I enjoy that, but is it really some right we should be protecting over getting out of poverty? Most stories told by grandparents start with them being poor and working their way out of poverty through extra effort. What is the base income required to sustain abnormal healthy life? In Kansas, I would think $200 for utilities, $500 for apartment, $300 for a car, $600 for food + insurance to support three people. That's $10 an hour, which one should be able to make after 4 years at Wal-Mart. It's not great, but it's enough. I lived on much less.