Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
This thread sure went to a weird place.

You don't hear black mothers telling their kids not to commit crimes for the same reason you don't hear "the good muslims" denouncing terrorists - because you aren't listening. And also in the former case because you aren't in their homes listening to them talk to their kids, so I don't know how you were expecting to hear it. At least I hope you aren't.

Unfortunately, there's a bias in white culture towards pretending that race doesn't exist or isn't a factor in anything, even when we have studies showing that white people are unconsciously regarded as more competent. Certain extremely capitalistic white cultures even like to maintain the fiction that people are supremely rational actors and aren't influenced by anything. Anthropologists believe this is because it allows the privileged in these societies to believe they are that way because they are simply better than the less privileged, while allowing the less privileged to sometimes believe that if they just do all the right things they can become privileged too. All this occurs within the context of an economy deliberately manipulated to ensure a certain level of unemployment.

Basically, white culture has a problem, and it's time we started owning up to it. We can change it for the better if we work together.

White culture? So you are saying this doesn't happen in... every dang country? Come on dude, stop talking filth. Im pretty sure Indians aren't white, but I bet they have rich and poor too. Chinese? Nah they are a huge sharing nation where the poor don't exist. Lets not get started on those pesky Malaysians and their non existent rich and poor divide... Stop hating yourself for no reason, being white doesn't mean you are evil unintentionally.

As for the rich, why hate on them? If you don't like the fact you aren't rich or people aren't also rich how do you fix that? People who are ahead are simply more capable, they will always find ways of being ahead.

Can I point out here that for some reason you are replying to me talking about white culture but don't react similarly to TheMeanDM talking about "black culture"? If I'm self-hating, is s/he black-hating?

Anyway, it's not "self-hating" to think your culture isn't perfect and could be improved. There's plenty of messed up stuff in our culture. We can make it better. Part of that is noticing rhetoric like this, where human self-determination is used to abdicate responsibility for the results of our actions.

Also, since it's on my mind I want to mention that breaking the law isn't intrinsically immoral. I'm not going to judge this guy, even if he was of sound mind, for breaking a law in a system that does a lot to screw him over. It strikes me as incredibly petty to tut-tut about him stealing $5 from a store while other people steal billions and get away with it.

I wasn't talking to him though, I don't know anything about black people since here a black person is like the rarest ethnicity I see. Calling something "white culture" that is present in ALL (that I know of) cultures is pretty odd. Instead of making it a culture war why not make it a human issue if you care about it? Sounds like you are targeting a group that is one among many DOING THE SAME THING. Again, why is White Culture and not human nature, since I can go to any culture and see those with the ability getting ahead leaving others behind?

So it's ok to steal when you think the world should give something to you? What's if the store owner was also black or poor? Just scraping by with no cash (common among small business), would it then still be ok?

This is why we have laws, to protect everyone from crimes that are harmful (like stealing things others have put their life towards). We can't exempt people because you think they need to steal to be on equal footing for "insert assumed reason here" (which completely defeats the purpose of trying to do something with your life). If we exempt this guy from stealing punishment (which, as I said was harsh to begin with considering he died somehow) then what happens when they all start stealing?

Having rich and poor is not a cultural thing, it's a human thing. Those who are above the rest in ability will always get ahead. So instead of trying to blame one culture (which is made up of a lot of cultures) how about trying to change people to fit your view. Then you wont target people unnecessarily because you have read too much Tumblr.

poverty does not cause crime. it does however severely restrict opportunities: opportunities to education, opportunities to transportation, to local jobs, opportunities to move to locations to better job regions, and biases against those poor.

 Swastakowey wrote:

I have never stolen before either, even when hungry (never been starving though I will admit, because a bag of pasta is like 1 dollar and can feed me for days).

But what if you don't have any facilities to prepare the pasta (i.e. running water, gas/electricity, a stove and a pot)? What would you feed yourself on then?

Peanut butter

Herzlos wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

I have never stolen before either, even when hungry (never been starving though I will admit, because a bag of pasta is like 1 dollar and can feed me for days).

But what if you don't have any facilities to prepare the pasta (i.e. running water, gas/electricity, a stove and a pot)? What would you feed yourself on then?

I would avail myself of the multiple public welfare systems that provide support. There are also a plethora of private soupkitchens and pantries in the US.

How does Dakka feel about the fact that the man had a history of mental illness and was supposed to be sent to a facility but was forgotten:


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/09/jamycheal_mitchell_died_in_jail_mentally_ill_man_stole_snacks_and_was_denied.single.html

I really can't fault the justice system on this. He was found to need help from a hospital and was ordered to be sent to one. They just couldn't because the hospital was full. You can't expect the police to care for a patient that needs psychological treatment, they're not paid enough nor qualified.

Seems like there really isn't anything to blame other than an overcrowded mental facility.

Evacuate him to a medical hospital. Perform regular wellness checks. Move him to the facility infirmary.

Just to name 3 things that could have been done.

Herzlos wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

I have never stolen before either, even when hungry (never been starving though I will admit, because a bag of pasta is like 1 dollar and can feed me for days).

But what if you don't have any facilities to prepare the pasta (i.e. running water, gas/electricity, a stove and a pot)? What would you feed yourself on then?

Bread, for a 50 cents more I can get a loaf of bread and eat it. Since im no longer paying for living area/stuff it's safe to assume any money I get will go towards food (water is free at schools and parks). A loaf will feed me for a while too. Assuming I only have $1.50. Carrots are also cheap (about 10c a carrot or so). For just 3 dollars I could have a lot of bread and carrot.

You'd have to be incredibly poor (as in no money) to be starving assuming you have no charities, no churches with food outside and help whatsoever. I think it's more dangerous surviving the night in the cold and so on when poor, not being hungry. Food is one of the cheapest things in western society.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I really can't fault the justice system on this. .

To be fair though, you're a person who can't fault the Justice system for anything.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I really can't fault the justice system on this. .

To be fair though, you're a person who can't fault the Justice system for anything.

No, I find many faults with it. This just isn't one of those situations.

Having worked psych....

Hospital floors (the *medical* floors) aren't really a good place for psych patients.

They tend to require 1 on 1 care....meaning...an aide or nurse would have to sit in their room 24/7.

This is as much to keep the patient safe as it is to keep the hospital (liability) and staff safe.

Hospitals rarely have psych patients on medical floors unless they are detoxing....a medical necessity for monitoring and treatment.

To just "house" someone on a medical floor that is otherwise healthy is, in my opinion, irresponsible: both legally and financially.

Not to mention that if you have acutely ill patients, they may be denied care because this psych patient is taking up a room.

It may *sound* lile an easy solution...but there are a ton of different things that do not make it feasible to simply do that.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Having worked psych....

Hospital floors (the *medical* floors) aren't really a good place for psych patients.

They tend to require 1 on 1 care....meaning...an aide or nurse would have to sit in their room 24/7.

This is as much to keep the patient safe as it is to keep the hospital (liability) and staff safe.

Hospitals rarely have psych patients on medical floors unless they are detoxing....a medical necessity for monitoring and treatment.

To just "house" someone on a medical floor that is otherwise healthy is, in my opinion, irresponsible: both legally and financially.

Not to mention that if you have acutely ill patients, they may be denied care because this psych patient is taking up a room.

It may *sound* lile an easy solution...but there are a ton of different things that do not make it feasible to simply do that.

While the psych issues are definitely something that require psychiatric care, the bit about "starving to death" is not. That's a medical concern.

His *family* said that they "believe" he starved to death.

No bias there.

Until the autopsy comes back, its undetermined.

So any pronounciatuon of cause of death on *anybody's* part (excepting the coroner) is merely fueling flames. Let the process work through to the end.

*If* they have mug shots from processing they can compare them to his deceased face to help determine if indeed he had "lost 65 pounds" as family claimed.

Don't know if they get weight as part of the booking process or not.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
His *family* said that they "believe" he starved to death.

No bias there.

Until the autopsy comes back, its undetermined.

So any pronounciatuon of cause of death on *anybody's* part (excepting the coroner) is merely fueling flames. Let the process work through to the end.

*If* they have mug shots from processing they can compare them to his deceased face to help determine if indeed he had "lost 65 pounds" as family claimed.

Don't know if they get weight as part of the booking process or not.

So either he starved to death, or he underwent some sort of cardiac arrest or other medical emergency for which he was untreated and no aid was rendered.

In neither case is this good, and in neither case is it legal to withhold life-saving medical care for lack of beds.

The article says that they found him dead....unwitnessed death.

If you have an unwitnessed cardiac event, you do one of two things: start ACLS or call the coroner....because if its unwitnessed you have no idea how long they have been down.

He *could* have been dead a few hours *shrug*.

 Psienesis wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
His *family* said that they "believe" he starved to death.

No bias there.

Until the autopsy comes back, its undetermined.

So any pronounciatuon of cause of death on *anybody's* part (excepting the coroner) is merely fueling flames. Let the process work through to the end.

*If* they have mug shots from processing they can compare them to his deceased face to help determine if indeed he had "lost 65 pounds" as family claimed.

Don't know if they get weight as part of the booking process or not.

So either he starved to death, or he underwent some sort of cardiac arrest or other medical emergency for which he was untreated and no aid was rendered.

In neither case is this good, and in neither case is it legal to withhold life-saving medical care for lack of beds.

But who do you hold responsible?

Its not like the police are able or qualified to render the necessary aid, and they certainly can't dump the person on the hospital steps and say "your problem now!".

Nor can the hospital be held responsible for not having space.

Which tells me that their security measures are extremely lacking, and news reports indicates no signs of violence.

I will say this....

If he had been refusing to eat, his electrolytes (especially potassium and sodium) may have been out of kilter. The body does not produce either naturally but needs them to function properly (cardiac functuon especially).

You can't generally look at someone and say "Your sodium is off" or "Your potassium is too high".

It takes blood work and ECG monitoring.

Cops aren't qualified in that....nor are they trained to think in that manner. They dont think (and arent trained to think) "If he isnt eating, his blood chemistry is going to be jacked up"

If (speculating with a big IF) he wasn't eating....he could have had a sudden (and unwitnessed) cardiac event.

You can have changes in just a few days...but "normal" people don't realize or know that.

It doesnt make the police responsible...IF that is determined to be the cause of death.

There should be procedures for medical care and medical examinations of prisoners. If they are not eating there should be a policy on how to monitor their status.

Maybe there was and it is an issue of bad officers at the facility not following orders, maybe there is no policy and the officers were working in a bad situation. Those are things that can be determined and hopefully improved.

Anybody incarcerating anyone will always be responsible for their health and welfare, that is part of the responsibility of the state toward the prisoner. I don't expect every officer to have the medical knowledge on how to treat cases like that, but there should be a system for issues like that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I really can't fault the justice system on this...

Seems like there really isn't anything to blame other than an overcrowded mental facility.

When the facilities needed by the justice system are overcrowded, that is a failing of the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
You'd have to be incredibly poor (as in no money) to be starving assuming you have no charities, no churches with food outside and help whatsoever. I think it's more dangerous surviving the night in the cold and so on when poor, not being hungry. Food is one of the cheapest things in western society.

So many people are so confident about how they'd handle a situation they've never been in. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth, as someone famous once said.

Anyhow, how you and I think we would handle that situation is really irrelevant, because we're not in that situation, and we're almost certainly completely wrong about how we'd handle it. What matters is how people in that situation handle it. And guess what, many of them rely on petty theft.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
You'd have to be incredibly poor (as in no money) to be starving assuming you have no charities, no churches with food outside and help whatsoever. I think it's more dangerous surviving the night in the cold and so on when poor, not being hungry. Food is one of the cheapest things in western society.

So many people are so confident about how they'd handle a situation they've never been in. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth, as someone famous once said.

Anyhow, how you and I think we would handle that situation is really irrelevant, because we're not in that situation, and we're almost certainly completely wrong about how we'd handle it. What matters is how people in that situation handle it. And guess what, many of them rely on petty theft.

Fair enough, I have never been in that situation, doesn't mean I am unaware of options available (probably many options I am unaware of too).

Just a few dollars will keep a man alive for a week. Food is so cheap we throw it out. There are plenty of options that do not involve theft. There are people who live off dumpster diving willingly. But you know what all of the above takes? Effort. It is easier to walk into a store, take it and then do it again a few days later.

What are you arguing anyway? We let poor people off the hook until we can stop poverty? Im all for stopping poverty if possible, but we can't just forgive people for stealing because that compounds the problem. There are other options that don't require theft. Being poor is not an excuse nor is it a reason to steal. If someone steals they are literally leeching of somebody else, weather that person can afford to be a host or not. My original point was and is, sympathy for the poor yes, sympathy for the criminals? No. Should he have died? No. But he did take from someone else (the victim) and so trying to turn him into a victim seems bizarre.

Of course, like someone pointed out, we don't know the full story.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Fair enough, I have never been in that situation, doesn't mean I am unaware of options available (probably many options I am unaware of too).

Sure, but being able to think of options that sound practical to you or me is one thing, but when we see those options aren’t being taken by people in that situation we probably have to assume there is a reason why.

And that reason is probably a lot more complex than ‘laziness’.

What are you arguing anyway? We let poor people off the hook until we can stop poverty?

No, law and order still matter, of course. My point is more that we won’t solve this by just assuming we have a solution, without actually first really learning from people in that situation, and people who’ve been working with people in that situation.

Being poor is not an excuse nor is it a reason to steal.

No, it’s a driver. That’s a huge distinction that people generally miss. An excuse is when an individual caught in that situation tries to justify what they did. A driver is when society as a whole looks at what factors cause certain kinds of behaviour.

So if some guy is caught stealing, then claims it’s because he was poor and we should let him off, that’s bs. But if society looks at how it might drive down crime, then it makes sense that poverty reduction programs would play a part in that.

 sebster wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Fair enough, I have never been in that situation, doesn't mean I am unaware of options available (probably many options I am unaware of too).

Sure, but being able to think of options that sound practical to you or me is one thing, but when we see those options aren’t being taken by people in that situation we probably have to assume there is a reason why.

And that reason is probably a lot more complex than ‘laziness’.

What are you arguing anyway? We let poor people off the hook until we can stop poverty?

No, law and order still matter, of course. My point is more that we won’t solve this by just assuming we have a solution, without actually first really learning from people in that situation, and people who’ve been working with people in that situation.

Being poor is not an excuse nor is it a reason to steal.

No, it’s a driver. That’s a huge distinction that people generally miss. An excuse is when an individual caught in that situation tries to justify what they did. A driver is when society as a whole looks at what factors cause certain kinds of behaviour.

So if some guy is caught stealing, then claims it’s because he was poor and we should let him off, that’s bs. But if society looks at how it might drive down crime, then it makes sense that poverty reduction programs would play a part in that.

See I agree (except when we assume they didn't take non criminal actions for a reason of worth) on all that, I was just concerned at the level of sympathy this guy had over 5 dollars, I get he died which was not necessary, but people are talking like he was a victim. The level of sympathy was pretty high for this guy despite his criminal actions.

As I said, im all for helping the poor, but we can't relax our feelings towards thieves 99% of the time. All the petty crimes add up.

 Swastakowey wrote:


See I agree (except when we assume they didn't take non criminal actions for a reason of worth) on all that, I was just concerned at the level of sympathy this guy had over 5 dollars, I get he died which was not necessary, but people are talking like he was a victim. The level of sympathy was pretty high for this guy despite his criminal actions.

As I said, im all for helping the poor, but we can't relax our feelings towards thieves 99% of the time. All the petty crimes add up.

He was victim. He was person that be it due malice, incompetence or some combination was killed by the neglect of our criminal system. Criminals do not cease to be human, criminals do not cease by worthy of my consideration, my empathy or their moral value as living persons. A criminal that is beaten, raped or killed by a guard is victim. A criminal that is disciplined arbitrarily, without evidence or in a cruel manner a victim. That someone may have victimized another in some capacity is not some free some pass by which their well being can be disregarded, or the value of their humanity diminished. This is true of any criminal but is certainly all the more resonant in this case considering he wasn't even convicted of an extremely petty crime.

 Chongara wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


See I agree (except when we assume they didn't take non criminal actions for a reason of worth) on all that, I was just concerned at the level of sympathy this guy had over 5 dollars, I get he died which was not necessary, but people are talking like he was a victim. The level of sympathy was pretty high for this guy despite his criminal actions.

As I said, im all for helping the poor, but we can't relax our feelings towards thieves 99% of the time. All the petty crimes add up.

He was victim. He was person that be it due malice, incompetence or some combination was killed by the neglect of our criminal system. Criminals do not cease to be human, criminals do not cease by worthy of my consideration, my empathy or their moral value as living persons. A criminal that is beaten, raped or killed by a guard is victim. A criminal that is disciplined arbitrarily, without evidence or in a cruel manner a victim. That someone may have victimized another in some capacity is not some free some pass by which their well being can be disregarded, or the value of their humanity diminished. This is true of any criminal but is certainly all the more resonant in this case considering he wasn't even convicted of an extremely petty crime.

As I said, he should not have died (well we assume, he could have died from something non preventable) but thats a lot of sympathy for someone who is willing to leach off someone else who is trying to get by. Who knows how poor that shop owner could be, 5 dollars could have put his daily income in the negatives that day. Could be worse if more stuff gets stolen. I don't have too much sympathy for the guy. Pity he died, but if he never committed a crime he could have died among family instead or maybe even not died at all.

 Swastakowey wrote:
See I agree (except when we assume they didn't take non criminal actions for a reason of worth) on all that, I was just concerned at the level of sympathy this guy had over 5 dollars, I get he died which was not necessary, but people are talking like he was a victim. The level of sympathy was pretty high for this guy despite his criminal actions.

He was a victim. He was imprisoned, which is a position in which a person is made completely vulnerable and dependant on the goodwill of the state, and then through failings and/or negligence of the state he ended up dead.

And that same thing would be true whether he's a poor guy arrested for a petty crime, or a billionaire suspected of embezzling millions.


If a nation is going to grant itself the power to imprison people, it has the moral obligation to make sure it is done safely.

 Swastakowey wrote:
. I don't have too much sympathy for the guy. Pity he died, but if he never committed a crime he could have died among family instead or maybe even not died at all.

I guess you're entitled to that opinion, but people are also entitled to hold opinions like "Kicking puppies is OK", "I think I should get punch anyone who insults me", "My farts don't stink", and "Everyone really wants to hear stories about why I'm smarter than them".

 Chongara wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
. I don't have too much sympathy for the guy. Pity he died, but if he never committed a crime he could have died among family instead or maybe even not died at all.

I guess you're entitled to that opinion, but people are also entitled to hold opinions like "Kicking puppies is OK", "I think I should get punch anyone who insults me", "My farts don't stink", and "Everyone really wants to hear stories about why I'm smarter than them".

If the puppy attacks a child, then yes I think you can kick the puppy. If someone insults me for years despite me moving countries and so on, then yes I will think it is ok to punch him. To me, my farts do not stink.

See you can try twist my opinion into being an entitled dirt bag, but im not the one stealing from people here (which I would say is entitlement, when you believe you can steal from others), the guy who died in prison however did.

So go ahead, try make me out to be entitled or have a ridiculous or outrageous opinion, if the guy turns out to be innocent then I will be deeply sad at the loss of his life.

 Swastakowey wrote:

So go ahead, try make me out to be entitled or have a ridiculous or outrageous opinion, if the guy turns out to be innocent then I will be deeply sad at the loss of his life.

Oh no I don't have to try and do that at all. Your opinions speak for themselves, the text is there and rather obvious in its implications. I'm just having some fun with it. Good work on immediately finding a way to justify to kicking a puppy though. I mean that's uh.. certainly a thing a you did.