A Fullerton police officer was charged with second-degree murder today in connection with the beating death of a schizophrenic homeless man as he was arrested by six officers. According to investigators, Kelly Thomas died from injuries suffered during his July 5 arrest. A second officer involved in the arrest was charged with involuntary manslaughter.
The decision to file criminal charges against the officers sent shockwaves through the community. For months, supporters of the Thomas family have argued that justice could come only through a murder conviction against the officers. On the other hand, supporters of the officers have cautioned that such a prosecution could have a chilling effect on officers’ ability to protect themselves and the community.
The structure of America's laws error on the side of granting guilty people their freedom in order to prevent imprisonment of innocent people. I suspect the same ideal would need to be established for determining who is to be institutionalized.
We pay for it through taxes. Surely there are monies that go to law enforcement for training the police to deal with the mentally ill, imprisoning them, etc. We already pay for some or most of it, but poorly. Who decides? Professionals. Mental health professionals, who know how to deal with the mentally ill, rather than cops. To me it is the same as dealing with animals. WARNING: I am not equating the mentally ill with animals, I am equating the distribution of responsibility between health professionals and law enforcement professionals. Just like today, if we see a coyote loose, we use animal control not cops, we rely on specific professionals instead of the cops. For a fire we rely on firemen, not cops. For handling ruckus crowds after a Lakers championship we use the cops, not our armed forces They are better trained to handle those situations. Likewise, for the mentally ill, we call appropriate mental-health professionals. The police are there (or should be) to protect and serve. Now, I say the above with the caveat or the assumption that we perceive mental illness to be a problem in society that affects us more than just background noise. If we do not feel it is an issue, then of course we shouldn't care about doing any of this. contd...
"And who gets to make that executive decision?" We, the People. Like we do directly via propositions or indirectly through our legislators. Today, we have decided that they are to be treated or handled no differently than sane persons. That prison is the place for breaking the law. All I am saying is that we can, if we see this as a problem, instead decide that treatment as recommended by professionals is the better option for all concerned. We, the People want to change how cops should react, we also decide that if they did not act appropriately, there need to be changes. I see this no differently.
None taken. Disagreement with stated opinion, without name-calling are always welcome (at least with me). "However, I believe you are naive to believe MORE taxation and government regulation would solve this issue." I have to disagree, considering you have cited nothing more than a belief based on popular bromide. Societal problems of this nature when unchecked need regulation. Nothing else exists to solve them. It is not as if we have free market or other solutions available to take the mentally ill off the streets. So whether by force, education or reform, most problems require money. Taxation is *a* way of getting that money. Another way could be the savings from prevention -- the cost of lawsuits, court times, trials, etc. could be better used. If the individual becomes productive after treatment, he actually could be contributing to the tax base. Now, I hope that you do realize that *an idea in general terms* discussed in the comment sections of an article is not a ready-for-legislation funding and implementation proposal. I'd be naive to claim that, and you'd be naive to assume that. Of course, it presumes that this is a problem important enough for us to be solved, and solved better than it is being today. Clearly if we do not agree then yes, it is moot. If it is, and we haven't explored *how* big it is, then yes, spending tax dollars or passing legislation to address it is wasteful.
Usually when someone rails against "more taxation and government regulation" these days, it is because they see ____ _______ as the alternative. Will you buy a vowel, or spin? "Why do you think we're having all these problems now." Which ones? There are too many to address. Pick a specific one, and if it is relevant to this topic or the mentally ill, I'll see if I can respond. Otherwise I'll simply take a guess at what you might have been thinking of, and suggest this: http://youtu.be/qOP2V_np2c0 If that does not answer your query, please be specific. "Hey, people thought the Soviet Union would go on and on." People talk about the fall of Rome, and yet Rome is still on the map. Things change. Wish there were simple explanations that also corresponded well with reality. And importantly, verifiable. Observing that a societal problem, something like the mentally ill roaming the streets is not addressed by free market principles is not to be taken as an endorsement for communism, or a kleptocracy for that matter. Likewise, suggesting that more taxation or regulation may be necessary for a specific problem is not a protest against the free market. Both of those would be bad deductions.
If you mean unfettered capitalism, a system in which everything is "privately owned and operated for profit" then you believe that fire services, police services, the roads, etc. should be privately owned and for profit concerns? If not, then you believe in the concept of public goofs. These are owned by the state for the benefit of the group and are "not for profit". A more socialist model whereby each individual in society purchases a small portion of the cost (taxes) for the goods and services to the benefit of all who need it, even if they don't "use" it themselves.. The question Shri poses is, since the capitalist model has shown that this (managing the mentally challenged) is not profitable, if there is a need to properly deal with the issue do we as a society wish to pay for doing so. This then breaks down into a cost benefit analysis of what are the cost of doing it one way (police/criminal incarceration) verses another (social/medical) are to society and which would be the better way to proceed. Oh, and for clarification, capitalism has NOTHING to do with free trade. Free trade deals with governmental regulations associated to cross-border commerce.
"One problem may be your equating Capitalism with Free Trade" Yes, if I had done that. Right now the only problem with it is you thinking that I did so. The video was strictly in response to your vaguely posed question about "today's problems", and I acknowledged so myself. The "free market" was the antithesis to "higher taxes and regulation" commonly thrown about today, and was a separate thing. I trust I addressed that. "Free trade" came up in a different conversation between us (Hamilton ring a bell?), I certainly did not bring it up here at all. Or there either. So yes, please enjoy your cocktail. Responsibly.
Capitalist has a very specific definition (see David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817) and Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848)) Capitalism (the word) is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850. The concept, as defined as owners of the production of goods and services, is not new any more than the concept of communism or socialism are. They are throw offs from the feudal system that came before it (a system that was unsustainable as population increased and came in contact with their neighbors - a totally different discussion). Simplistically stated (without the economics of it...) Capitalism - "survival of the fittest". Communism - "you put in your fair share; you get your fair share". Socialism - "you get a share regardless of your contribution". In the US we have a mixed model where we have both Capitalism and Socialism. When it comes to "public good" these items are socialized (fire/police/education/transportation) but outside of "public good" the model is capitalist. In the US the determination on which model is used is done by a cost/benefit analysis and the plutocracy determines what "public good" will be socialized and how (police/prison .v. medical/social for the mentally ill). A much longer discussion, but I have run out of characters.
In the 1920's the plutocracy lost control, and for almost 60 years they struggled to regain it. By 1970 they were back to the top of their game. Today we have a fiscal situation that is effectively worse than that of the 1920's. You want to understand the system? Watch Bullworth (1998). The "Obscenity" rap (which can't be printed here because of size and language) is classic. Not for the rap (which is over the top) but for the raw brutal honesty of our current economic condition (circa 1998, and even moreso true today). Written by Warren Beatty (story and screenplay) and Jeremy Pikser (screenplay), directed and produced by Beatty the movie attempted to get the core story of the plutocracy across, but it was lost in the over the edge multiple story lines for most viewers. [It should be noted that the film "lost money" and was panned in all major reviews by major corporate owned media... I wonder why?]
Marsy’s Law: “The enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system to fully protect protecting those rights and ensuring that crime victims are treated with RESPECT AND DIGNITY, is a matter of grave statewide concern high public importance. California’s victims of crime are largely dependent upon the proper functioning of government, upon the criminal justice system and upon the expeditious enforcement of the rights of victims of crime described herein, in order to protect the public safety and to secure justice when the public safety has been compromised by criminal activity.” http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop9
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/kelly-thomas-officer-arraigned.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-honor-recruit-20111007,0,2856002.story