>“The millions of people in New York City may not agree on everything, but we can agree that New York City should be safe for those who call it home. [...] If Michelle were still here, she would urge us to come together to build a safer community. This is not about politics; this is about caring for each other and humanity.”

That's unfortunately not a consensus in New York City. This sub has been one example of that.

If Michelle were still here and urging us to build a "safer community", she would be on the receiving end of fringe groups dishonestly accusing her of being a "far-right tough-on-crime conservative" for suggesting that NYC is not safe enough.

If that deters others from committing crimes, that’s a great outcome.

Saves a lot public resources (police, courts, DAs, public defenders, …)

A penthouse owner is hardly going to get any sympathy from any decarceration advocate.

But regardless of that, how keeping him looked up is going to make the problem be solved any sooner? Is he supposed to be attempting to call and hire contractors from inside of Riker's?

He's spending more time in Riker's than the six-month deal DA Bragg gave to the unrepentant anti-semitic attacker Waseem Awawdeh.

I mostly agree with everything you wrote.

And I wanted to call out that this is quite a courageous thing to bring up in this sub:

>Crime does not just occur naturally due to a lack of active or effective policing. People make choices to commit crime.

You’re being inconsistent here.

If NYPD doesn’t prevent shit, doesn’t that imply crimes in NYC are out of control?

Do you actually wish the cops did something to prevent those deaths?

We might be on the same camp here.

Because in your mind, the officer would’ve gone there to punch the girl no matter what happened prior to it.

Shawn Frye, Raelynn Cameron, ...

There were many factors that contributed to what happened there.

Some people only look at the factors contributed by the cop.

Other people only look at the factors contributed by girl.

It's hard to see the root causes holistically while being blinded by ideology, but I bet it's more comfortable than looking at the reality objectively.

>What a coincidence!!

It's more than a coincidence, because it's actually a precursor relationship, if you care about root causes for a minute.

Regardless of the officer lacking training, if the girls weren't fighting in the first place, the whole incident would've never happened.

10% of 1,524 victims amounts to 150 underage victims.

The Uvalde school shooting in Texas had 19 underage victims. So in NYC, we are having the equivalent of 7x Uvalde shootings in a year when it comes to under-18 victims.

But I bet the media covered the Uvalde shooting more than all of the shootings in NYC combined.

>you're telling everybody else to stop exposing the continued lies because you've seen enough and any more exposure makes you uncomfortable.

Just stop with the bigotry.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, but it is one of the things that has been plaguing our country.

​

>I don't see at all how this constitutes bigotry.

That's exactly the problem, isn't it?

Self-awareness is usually hard earned.

I have no problem with exposing grift. In fact, I advocate for more effective mechanisms such as allowing his outright removal by the will of the voters.

That's more effective and preferable (in my opinion) in dealing with the problem, and as a side-effect there will be no need to gloat on a justice-porn-fantasy where George Santos falls flat on his face if only the public exposes and shame him enough.

My problem is with the (wittingly or unwittingly) promotion of bigotry that comes along with such crowd driven effect of unquenchable thirst for public shaming.

I've been putting you on the unwittingly category. But now I can't say that you're unaware anymore.

The hit-and-run driver should be investigated and arrested. Injuring 22 people is quite a count for a single incident.

But what happens to the liability insurance here?

22 hospital bills must blow through anyone's insurance coverage.

>You’re literally calling people bigots for questioning him on things he obviously misrepresented.

Your comment here captures your lack of nuance neatly. Because your comment mistakenly equates "questioning the approach" with "defending the guy".

You seem to believe that a bigoted approach is justified when a person like George Santos deserves shunning.

Just like you seem to believe due process doesn't deserve court protection if the prosecutorial overreach seems to favor a favored political angle.

There's plenty of material to criticize George Santos without having to resort to bigotry and without advancing authoritarian gloating that mirrors the mindset logic typical of far-right conservatives and far-left fringe groups.

>Santos is definitely the type of upstanding figure whose lies should be tolerated, and you’re just the right person to advocate for him.

Not only you're not capturing nuance, but it seems that you're reverting back to misrepresenting other people's comments.

>Aw have already had a ballot and will have another one. You’re conservative and aware of the fact that conservatives use recalls to take advantage of low turnout which represents the will of the people significantly less. This was the blueprint in San Francisco.

Your comment is redefining what it means to be out of touch from the reality: when someone believes the majority of the voters in SF are conservative (in a vote turn out that far exceeded the ballot which elected Chesa Boudin in the first place)

​

>Just because it gives you the outcome you want doesn’t mean it represents the will of the people. Regular elections do that just fine.

If the ballot decides to recall, yes, it does represent the will of the people.

Though I don't know if the result would be the removal of DA Bragg or not.

But I do know the lack of such outlet for voters to express such will has spilled over to the governor's election unnecessary.

>I’m going to put that up there with you blaming AOC for BLM protests, your unfounded conspiracy theory that there was a mass murder coverup on Riker’s Island, and your insistence that crime in New York City is so much worse than smaller cities (despite the fact it is significantly less per capita here) simply because the density of the city is higher.

Your distorted and simplistic summary is a great example of your inability to grasp any nuanced topic (which I def. tried to walk you through multiple times).

It's unsurprising that you might be feeling uncomfortable with me calling out bigoted mindset. The lack of nuance goes hand-in-hand.

>Try it in an election.

A ballot should be a fine way to determine the will of the people in the district with respect to hiring and firing the district attorney.

Definitively take my comments with skepticism, specially if my comments calling out the widespread bigoted mindset in this episode may have made you uncomfortable.

In general it'd be extremely foolish for anyone to not take any comment on the internet with skepticism. But I think the attentive readers already knows that.

The DA office is distinct from other elected offices.

And the lack of rights to fire DA Bragg introduced a distortion in the midterm elections, because it became a governor's election issue unnecessarily.

DAs are attorneys, and the people in the district they represent should have the right to fire them at any time and for any reason.

Just like any other attorney in NY can be fired by their client at any time and for any reason.

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/attorneys/clientsrights.shtml:

>you have the right to discharge your attorney and terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time.

I think material lies during a campaign that informed voters decision during the election should be one of the components to qualify a recall vote of a congressperson. I hope episodes like this highlight the need for such mechanisms.

I also think there should be something like fundraising fraud based on material lies.

George Santos should be removed from office by the voters in his district, and it's a real shame that voters don't have the right to do that. And the GOP will deserve all the negative consequences for not pushing him out.

The guy is an obvious liar.

What's interesting is that this whole episode provided cover for all the bigots to come out in the open with all the bigoted logic they always had, but were held back because of a lack of a target that was sufficiently unsympathetic.

• People who suddenly became anti-tenant (because he didn't pay his rent).
• People who suddenly were okay with questioning someone's racial background, sexual orientation and nationality.
• People who suddenly became tough on crime gloating for a 5-year sentence for stealing shoes. And now gloating on his stealing a phone and not going to work.
• People who suddenly became okay with over-tuning the will of the voters.

>The real hypocrisy is the GOP being about law and order and defending this guy conditional on partisanship.

Most people can see the hypocrisy on the GOP here.

If the "law and order" hypocrisy wasn't obvious during the Trump era, I'm surprised George Santos is what it took for you to realize that.

Would you feel that the whataboutism ("The GOP has hypocrisy too!") makes the hypocrisy in the "criminal justice advocacy" crowd look any better?

We should build the community jails for the less severe and non-violent crimes. A special focus on the ones who still have a good chance at reintegration and reform.

More severe cases and cases requiring more specialized services should still go to Riker’s.