Conquer Club

Uh...PLAYER? thegreekdog?

http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-lgbt-rights-racial-justice-criminal-law-reform/shut-or-get-out-pa-city-punishes

Last year in Norristown, Pa., Lakisha Briggs' boyfriend physically assaulted her, and the police arrested him. But in a cruel turn of events, a police officer then told Ms. Briggs, "You are on three strikes. We're gonna have your landlord evict you."

Yes, that's right. The police threatened Ms. Briggs with eviction because she had received their assistance for domestic violence. Under Norristown's "disorderly behavior ordinance," the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of "disorderly behavior" within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes "domestic disturbances" as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law.

After her first "strike," Ms. Briggs was terrified of calling the police. She did not want to do anything to risk losing her home. So even when her now ex-boyfriend attacked her with a brick, she did not call. And later, when he stabbed her in the neck, she was still too afraid to reach out. But both times, someone else did call the police. Based on these "strikes," the city pressured her landlord to evict. After a housing court refused to order an eviction, the city said it planned to condemn the property and forcibly remove Ms. Briggs from her home. The ACLU intervened, and the city did not carry out its threats, and even agreed to repeal the ordinance. But just two weeks later, Norristown quietly passed a virtually identical ordinance that imposes fines on landlords unless they evict tenants who obtain police assistance, including for domestic violence.

A recent study of Milwaukee's nuisance ordinance showed that domestic violence was the third most common reason that police issued a nuisance citation, far above drug, property damage, or trespassing offenses. The study also established that enforcement of the ordinance disproportionately targeted African-American neighborhoods. The result? Women of color, like Ms. Briggs, were less able to access police protection.

Even worse, Norristown reports that domestic violence victims make up 20 percent of its homeless population.

Written by York PA natives about York PA.

Sounds like just another law to oppress the poor.

One thing needs to be considered. Doesn't look like it would apply in this case as it was her "ex" boyfriend involved, but what about these women who get abused over and over again and refuse to leave the wanker that beats them? I could see an ordinance such as this applied to such a woman and with good reason. A woman like that needs to be arrested for terminal stoopit.


Honibaz

It's just something that seemed like a good idea on paper that back fired.

Some people will quit fighting after they have to move three times but being arrested 50 has little or no effect.

Ace Rimmer wrote:

Written by York PA natives about York PA.

Norristown and York are as different as you can get.

Otherwise +1 to Symmetry.

But... in the interest of playing devil's advocate (which may be close to the truth in this case), I will make some arguments as why this is a good ordinance.

The subject of this article was more afraid of calling the cops than ratting our her boyfriend. She was hit with a brick and stabbed in the neck, both life-threatening injuries. She refused to call the police. Do you think there were other reasons why she didn't call the cops (other than the ordinance)? Would you rather lose your apartment or get stabbed in the neck (and hit with a brick)?

thegreekdog wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:

Written by York PA natives about York PA.

Norristown and York are as different as you can get.

Otherwise +1 to Symmetry.

But... in the interest of playing devil's advocate (which may be close to the truth in this case), I will make some arguments as why this is a good ordinance.

The subject of this article was more afraid of calling the cops than ratting our her boyfriend. She was hit with a brick and stabbed in the neck, both life-threatening injuries. She refused to call the police. Do you think there were other reasons why she didn't call the cops (other than the ordinance)? Would you rather lose your apartment or get stabbed in the neck (and hit with a brick)?

Yes, I would rather lose my apartment than get stabbed in the neck. That's a pretty easy choice for me. Getting hit with a brick...maybe that's a tougher call, I suppose, depending on the amount of force involved.

(That wasn't a very strong devil's advocate defense. <smile>)

Urgh.

2dimes wrote:It's just something that seemed like a good idea on paper that back fired.

I'll agree with that. To try another devil's-advocate tack, you'll note that even when she didn't call, somebody else did and it was still a "strike", so the ordinance is not against making the call (though it could be argued that it turns out that way) it is against being involved in the disturbance. My wife and I have known and tried to help several women like this (all races). There is a clear phenomenon of women just repeatedly being drawn to these same abusive types. They keep looking for love in the same wrong places and getting the same insane result.

So the ordinance is aimed at discouraging a whole culture that includes various types of disturbances. I think including domestic violence among the types was supposed to send a message to the "men" (I have to put that term in quotes when referring to a male who hurts a woman) to cool it, and maybe a message to the women that if they don't start taking up with a better class of men, they're better off without one. That said, I definitely couldn't argue with the statement that it fails to do so.

I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

daddy1gringo wrote:
I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

Wassup DG?

Other variables should be considered as to people fearing to call cops. I live in one of the 2 poorest parishes (Washington) in Louisiana and right next door is the most well to do (St Tammany). Washington parish police don't mess with the poor because everyone is poor, but the St Tammany police cater to the well to do yuppies that are for the most part members of the great white flight from New Orleans. St Tammany police target the poor, mostly for drugs, but also for traffic violations, child support, spitting on the sidewalk, etc. The poor folks can't afford to pay off the crooked St Tammany judges (quite possibly the most corrupt in the entire US), can't afford lawyers to get them off the drug and other charges, and frequently can't afford to pay their traffic fines or child support. The results of all this is that a large percentage of poor folks here have warrants out on them. Having a warrant out on you makes you damn reluctant to call the cops.

Even down here it's not a matter of race so much as poverty. The target of the ordinance is poor people. Hit the well to do, educated yuppies with an ordinance like this and they'll have their attorneys on you like gravy on rice, so the cops will not usually invoke such a law except with the poor.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:Even down here it's not a matter of race so much as poverty. The target of the ordinance is poor people. Hit the well to do, educated yuppies with an ordinance like this and they'll have their attorneys on you like gravy on rice, so the cops will not usually invoke such a law except with the poor.

I don't know if York has a similar ordinance, but Norristown is poor and the majority of its populace is black; York is poor and the majority of its populace is white. Like Louisiana, probably has more to do with poverty than with race.

b.k. barunt wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:
I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

Wassup DG?

Other variables should be considered as to people fearing to call cops. I live in one of the 2 poorest parishes (Washington) in Louisiana and right next door is the most well to do (St Tammany). Washington parish police don't mess with the poor because everyone is poor, but the St Tammany police cater to the well to do yuppies that are for the most part members of the great white flight from New Orleans. St Tammany police target the poor, mostly for drugs, but also for traffic violations, child support, spitting on the sidewalk, etc. The poor folks can't afford to pay off the crooked St Tammany judges (quite possibly the most corrupt in the entire US), can't afford lawyers to get them off the drug and other charges, and frequently can't afford to pay their traffic fines or child support. The results of all this is that a large percentage of poor folks here have warrants out on them. Having a warrant out on you makes you damn reluctant to call the cops.

Even down here it's not a matter of race so much as poverty. The target of the ordinance is poor people. Hit the well to do, educated yuppies with an ordinance like this and they'll have their attorneys on you like gravy on rice, so the cops will not usually invoke such a law except with the poor.

Yep, that all makes sense to me.

Pennsylvania laws suck

Mageplunka69 wrote:Pennsylvania laws suck

Please, do share more of your unique insight with us.

<Removed>

daddy1gringo wrote:

2dimes wrote:It's just something that seemed like a good idea on paper that back fired.

I'll agree with that. To try another devil's-advocate tack, you'll note that even when she didn't call, somebody else did and it was still a "strike", so the ordinance is not against making the call (though it could be argued that it turns out that way) it is against being involved in the disturbance. My wife and I have known and tried to help several women like this (all races). There is a clear phenomenon of women just repeatedly being drawn to these same abusive types. They keep looking for love in the same wrong places and getting the same insane result.

So the ordinance is aimed at discouraging a whole culture that includes various types of disturbances. I think including domestic violence among the types was supposed to send a message to the "men" (I have to put that term in quotes when referring to a male who hurts a woman) to cool it, and maybe a message to the women that if they don't start taking up with a better class of men, they're better off without one. That said, I definitely couldn't argue with the statement that it fails to do so.

I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

It's likely that the police in the US, as in the UK are institutionally racist.

bedub1 wrote:Good idea, poor implementation.

The problem is police are constantly called to the same house for a domestic disturbance violation. They arrive, the woman pleads with them not to arrest her husband/boyfriend etc. This happens over and over and over again. So to try to stop it, they come up with this stupid law.

What they should do, is arrest somebody once they are called out. You either arrest the guy for assault etc, or you arrest the woman for filing a false police report and crying wolf. And then you GET HER SOME FUCKING HELP so she dumps the piece of shit guys.

This makes sense to me.

Symmetry wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

2dimes wrote:It's just something that seemed like a good idea on paper that back fired.

I'll agree with that. To try another devil's-advocate tack, you'll note that even when she didn't call, somebody else did and it was still a "strike", so the ordinance is not against making the call (though it could be argued that it turns out that way) it is against being involved in the disturbance. My wife and I have known and tried to help several women like this (all races). There is a clear phenomenon of women just repeatedly being drawn to these same abusive types. They keep looking for love in the same wrong places and getting the same insane result.

So the ordinance is aimed at discouraging a whole culture that includes various types of disturbances. I think including domestic violence among the types was supposed to send a message to the "men" (I have to put that term in quotes when referring to a male who hurts a woman) to cool it, and maybe a message to the women that if they don't start taking up with a better class of men, they're better off without one. That said, I definitely couldn't argue with the statement that it fails to do so.

I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

It's likely that the police in the US, as in the UK are institutionally racist.

It's likely you've made a grand sweeping claim with no evidence.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

2dimes wrote:It's just something that seemed like a good idea on paper that back fired.

I'll agree with that. To try another devil's-advocate tack, you'll note that even when she didn't call, somebody else did and it was still a "strike", so the ordinance is not against making the call (though it could be argued that it turns out that way) it is against being involved in the disturbance. My wife and I have known and tried to help several women like this (all races). There is a clear phenomenon of women just repeatedly being drawn to these same abusive types. They keep looking for love in the same wrong places and getting the same insane result.

So the ordinance is aimed at discouraging a whole culture that includes various types of disturbances. I think including domestic violence among the types was supposed to send a message to the "men" (I have to put that term in quotes when referring to a male who hurts a woman) to cool it, and maybe a message to the women that if they don't start taking up with a better class of men, they're better off without one. That said, I definitely couldn't argue with the statement that it fails to do so.

I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

It's likely that the police in the US, as in the UK are institutionally racist.

It's likely you've made a grand sweeping claim with no evidence.

You don't think that the police discriminate based on race? What sort of evidence would you like?

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

2dimes wrote:It's just something that seemed like a good idea on paper that back fired.

I'll agree with that. To try another devil's-advocate tack, you'll note that even when she didn't call, somebody else did and it was still a "strike", so the ordinance is not against making the call (though it could be argued that it turns out that way) it is against being involved in the disturbance. My wife and I have known and tried to help several women like this (all races). There is a clear phenomenon of women just repeatedly being drawn to these same abusive types. They keep looking for love in the same wrong places and getting the same insane result.

So the ordinance is aimed at discouraging a whole culture that includes various types of disturbances. I think including domestic violence among the types was supposed to send a message to the "men" (I have to put that term in quotes when referring to a male who hurts a woman) to cool it, and maybe a message to the women that if they don't start taking up with a better class of men, they're better off without one. That said, I definitely couldn't argue with the statement that it fails to do so.

I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

It's likely that the police in the US, as in the UK are institutionally racist.

It's likely you've made a grand sweeping claim with no evidence.

You don't think that the police discriminate based on race? What sort of evidence would you like?

I don't think that all police in the US are "institutionally racist"--however you want to define that.
Empirical evidence is nice. It would be great to see the relevant variables included, and then (somehow) determine that the remaining discrepancy is due to "institutional racism." Good luck!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

2dimes wrote:It's just something that seemed like a good idea on paper that back fired.

I'll agree with that. To try another devil's-advocate tack, you'll note that even when she didn't call, somebody else did and it was still a "strike", so the ordinance is not against making the call (though it could be argued that it turns out that way) it is against being involved in the disturbance. My wife and I have known and tried to help several women like this (all races). There is a clear phenomenon of women just repeatedly being drawn to these same abusive types. They keep looking for love in the same wrong places and getting the same insane result.

So the ordinance is aimed at discouraging a whole culture that includes various types of disturbances. I think including domestic violence among the types was supposed to send a message to the "men" (I have to put that term in quotes when referring to a male who hurts a woman) to cool it, and maybe a message to the women that if they don't start taking up with a better class of men, they're better off without one. That said, I definitely couldn't argue with the statement that it fails to do so.

I also think that the article is badly worded when it says that the ordinance "targets" blacks and other minorities. I would say that it misses its target and hits them instead. Then again, maybe I am too trusting and the framers of the laws really did have racist ulterior motives.

It's likely that the police in the US, as in the UK are institutionally racist.

It's likely you've made a grand sweeping claim with no evidence.

You don't think that the police discriminate based on race? What sort of evidence would you like?

I don't think that all police in the US are "institutionally racist"--however you want to define that.
Empirical evidence is nice. It would be great to see the relevant variables included, and then (somehow) determine that the remaining discrepancy is due to "institutional racism." Good luck!

Should I stick to the Penn police for now?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-5981801.html
http://pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com/2012/01/17/racism-unfortunately-still-thrives-in-central-pennsylvania-racist-police-chief-in-harrisburg-50-black-and-70-minority-commonly-used-n-word/

Oh, so you've scaled down your argument. Great!

Of course, some cops perform racist acts, and no one denies that, so that really isn't the issue. The issue was "institutional racism."

What percent of Penn. cops are racist?

Looks like 2 cops, Derrick Donchak and Brandon Piekarsky, in Shenandoah, Pa.

Oh but wait!:

An argument broke out and the football players hurled ethnic slurs, although lawyers disputed who said exactly what. Defense attorneys called Ramirez the aggressor.

So, now the victim is racist?

And according to the second link, in Harrisburg, there's about 1 or 2 racist cops.


To be generous, that's 4-6 racist cops out of X-amount--and that's accepting the news articles, one of which is an incomplete story, as sufficient evidence (which it isn't for making such a bold claim). Based on your evidence, we cannot confirm that there is institutional racism regarding cops in Pennsylvania--or the US.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, so you've scaled down your argument. Great!

I can scale back up if that's easier for you to understand.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

i don't think I attacked you, I just disagreed with your opinion about how the police treat racial minorities.