Economy thread:11-13-07 Half Million dollar home neighborhoods fighting inner-city problems like gangs, drugs and theft

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Desperate people do desperate things
Like make posts unrelated to the economy. You are aware, I should think, that overall this country has seen a precipitous decline in the last decade or two of all violent crime including homicide?
Well Experian did the right thing and they took off all 15 accounts that were not mine.
Your wife had 15 accounts? Hell man, you gosta keep those ladies in check, bra, for real.

Mark this day. A rare occasion agreeing with Nebor.
WTF? You said it was the bad economy and now you're agreeing with Nebor who pointed to totally different factors?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: wetech
Originally posted by: Nebor
I blame the militarization of the nations police departments: the establishment of SWAT or SRT teams in every municipality, and the excessive use of those units. I blame rising traffic fines used to fund machine guns for these SWAT teams.

If you were ever in a situation where SWAT was required to help you out, I guarantee you'd change your tune.


And most of all I blame the police for breeding the us against them mentality. They think they're superior to the rest of us
Where do you get this idea from? Press conferences from the police saying, "We're better then you" ???

that they're more professional, or better trained.
Professional - Depends on who you compare them against. Comparing them against Joe Criminal, I'd say yes.
Better Trained - They are.

Police are going on more raids, and serving more "no-knock" warrants, and personally, I have zero sympathy for them getting their asses shot off in the process.
Those warrants have to be approved by a judge, you know. Do you really have that little respect (never mind general decency) for the men and women who have made it their job to protect you? Your post makes it sound as if you're almost happy if a cop gets shot.

The police have no duty to protect any citizen in the United States. It's not their job. They're not liable to do it.

Criminal actions as small as criminal mischief or as grand as attempted murder can be legally resolved with deadly force from the average citizen. The police are just there to clean up the mess.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Nebor
The police have no duty to protect any citizen in the United States. It's not their job. They're not liable to do it.

Criminal actions as small as criminal mischief or as grand as attempted murder can be legally resolved with deadly force from the average citizen. The police are just there to clean up the mess.

Yep. The courts have even ruled as such.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Nebor
The police have no duty to protect any citizen in the United States. It's not their job. They're not liable to do it.

Criminal actions as small as criminal mischief or as grand as attempted murder can be legally resolved with deadly force from the average citizen. The police are just there to clean up the mess.

Yep. The courts have even ruled as such.
Only in silly cases where some pedantic attorney was arguing over semantics. The reality is that cops are there exactly to "protect and to serve", whether some stupid cop wanted to eat donuts instead of going to stop a robbery or not and there's no law saying he can't. This is how the citizenry understand their role and this is how they understand it, which is of course why cops are killed all the time in the line of duty stepping into situations specifically protecting somebody. Aruging otherwise is really like being charged with battery against your wife and defending yourself based on some law from 1806 that is still technically in effect saying that you can hit her as long as it's a Thursday and it's no more than three times with an open hand.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Nebor
The police have no duty to protect any citizen in the United States. It's not their job. They're not liable to do it.

Criminal actions as small as criminal mischief or as grand as attempted murder can be legally resolved with deadly force from the average citizen. The police are just there to clean up the mess.

Yep. The courts have even ruled as such.

I don't know what cases you're talking about, but without doing any research I'd merely guess that the courts ruled that a police officer cannot be sued by a citizen for failing to protect them. It sounds like you might be conflating the legal term "duty" with common usage "duty". Police may not be liable in suit, but it is inarguable they have a duty in the common usage to protect civilians.

I don't call 911 for phone sex. Well, not anymore I mean.

As to the main thread topic, the answer is simple: clearly it's video games. http://www.time.com/time/natio...0,8599,1666750,00.html

"Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Combat and On Killing, who trains the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, subscribes to that controversial notion. Grossman relates how officers raiding methamphetamine labs and gang hangouts often find violent video games left behind. "Every time they take down a gang house, there's always one thing that will always be there," Grossman says. "It's a video game. The video games are their newspaper, their television, their all-consuming narrative. And their video games are all cop-killer, criminal simulators."

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
A US Supreme Court case is silly and pedantic arguing over semantics? Sorry Skoorb, but your emotional arguments about what the police SHOULD be responsible for mean nothing. Castle Rock v Gonzales, look it up and be informed. The police are NOT required to protect any individual. That's from twenty years ago, so I'm not even sure what 200 year old law has to do with anything. You're clearly arguing about something you don't understand here.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Nebor
The police have no duty to protect any citizen in the United States. It's not their job. They're not liable to do it.

Criminal actions as small as criminal mischief or as grand as attempted murder can be legally resolved with deadly force from the average citizen. The police are just there to clean up the mess.

Yep. The courts have even ruled as such.

I don't know what cases you're talking about, but without doing any research I'd merely guess that the courts ruled that a police officer cannot be sued by a citizen for failing to protect them. It sounds like you might be conflating the legal term "duty" with common usage "duty". Police may not be liable in suit, but it is inarguable they have a duty in the common usage to protect civilians.

I don't call 911 for phone sex. Well, not anymore I mean.

As to the main thread topic, the answer is simple: clearly it's video games. http://www.time.com/time/natio...0,8599,1666750,00.html

"Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Combat and On Killing, who trains the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, subscribes to that controversial notion. Grossman relates how officers raiding methamphetamine labs and gang hangouts often find violent video games left behind. "Every time they take down a gang house, there's always one thing that will always be there," Grossman says. "It's a video game. The video games are their newspaper, their television, their all-consuming narrative. And their video games are all cop-killer, criminal simulators."

It seems to me that lack of liability is the exact same thing as not having the duty. It's one to say "that's their duty" in a soft, philosophical sense but the courts have stated that you can't sue them for failing to do it properly which in the real world translates to "There is no duty to protect." Duty implies liability. Duty without liability has no teeth.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
A US Supreme Court case is silly and pedantic arguing over semantics? Sorry Skoorb, but your emotional arguments about what the police SHOULD be responsible for mean nothing. Castle Rock v Gonzales, look it up and be informed. The police are NOT required to protect any individual. That's from twenty years ago, so I'm not even sure what 200 year old law has to do with anything. You're clearly arguing about something you don't understand here.
No, you're arguing technicalities and I'm arguing applied common use. 99% of cops in this country will say it's in their job description, at least tacitly, to protect citizens and we all know that in their practical day to day duties they do exactly this. To say they are not legally bound to is an academic exercise and has little bearing on anything. Cops put themselves in harms way all the time, are frequently killed/hurt protecting people, and there is no groundswell or even cough of a movement from police who are deliberately avoiding risky situations simply because the courts say that, technically, they can and it's ok.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Nebor
The police have no duty to protect any citizen in the United States. It's not their job. They're not liable to do it.

Criminal actions as small as criminal mischief or as grand as attempted murder can be legally resolved with deadly force from the average citizen. The police are just there to clean up the mess.

Yep. The courts have even ruled as such.

I don't know what cases you're talking about, but without doing any research I'd merely guess that the courts ruled that a police officer cannot be sued by a citizen for failing to protect them. It sounds like you might be conflating the legal term "duty" with common usage "duty". Police may not be liable in suit, but it is inarguable they have a duty in the common usage to protect civilians.

I don't call 911 for phone sex. Well, not anymore I mean.

As to the main thread topic, the answer is simple: clearly it's video games. http://www.time.com/time/natio...0,8599,1666750,00.html

"Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Combat and On Killing, who trains the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, subscribes to that controversial notion. Grossman relates how officers raiding methamphetamine labs and gang hangouts often find violent video games left behind. "Every time they take down a gang house, there's always one thing that will always be there," Grossman says. "It's a video game. The video games are their newspaper, their television, their all-consuming narrative. And their video games are all cop-killer, criminal simulators."

It seems to me that lack of liability is the exact same thing as not having the duty. It's one to say "that's their duty" in a soft, philosophical sense but the courts have stated that you can't sue them for failing to do it properly which in the real world translates to "There is no duty to protect." Duty implies liability. Duty without liability has no teeth.

You're right in that I was arguing that it is their moral duty to protect civilians. For example, if you, a civilian, are walking down the street and pass an infant facedown and drowning in a 2 inch puddle of water, you have no legal duty to save it. You cannot be sued (unless you live in an extremely rare jurisdiction that has good samaritan laws). You can sit there and watch it drown or ignore it completely. However, I would argue it's your moral duty as a human to save that infant. You can't get sued, but try showing your face in public after it gets out that you didn't save a baby drowning in a puddle. Just because you can't be sued doesn't mean a moral duty has no teeth.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Just because you can't be sued doesn't mean a moral duty has no teeth.
And this is why, law or not, cops continue consistently and predictably to protect citizens.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Just because you can't be sued doesn't mean a moral duty has no teeth.
And this is why, law or not, cops continue consistently and predictably to protect citizens.

There is nothing predictable about morals.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A while back I posted how I found that my ex wife's accounts were still on my credit report.

One of the so called AT experts said "I cannot divorce those accounts".

It was clearly spelled out in the divorce what accounts she was keeping and what accounts I was keeping.

Well Experian did the right thing and they took off all 15 accounts that were not mine.

Thank you Experian.

Who the hell cares about your divorce debt agreement, what the outcome is, and what does it have to do with this thread?

Oh and I would love to see the quote from "One of the so called AT experts said "I cannot divorce those accounts". Youre trolling and bashing and as usual CREATING drama.

edit: you never mentioned Trans Union or Equifax. Hope you realize they exist also and are independant of the others. Please dont report your personal details here, because, like mine, no one really cares. Just cover your ass.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A while back I posted how I found that my ex wife's accounts were still on my credit report.

One of the so called AT experts said "I cannot divorce those accounts".

It was clearly spelled out in the divorce what accounts she was keeping and what accounts I was keeping.

Well Experian did the right thing and they took off all 15 accounts that were not mine.

Thank you Experian.

Who the hell cares about your divorce debt agreement, what the outcome is, and what does it have to do with this thread?

Oh and I would love to see the quote from "One of the so called AT experts said "I cannot divorce those accounts". Youre trolling and bashing and as usual CREATING drama.

edit: you never mentioned Trans Union or Equifax. Hope you realize they exist also and are independant of the others. Please dont report your personal details here, because, like mine, no one really cares. Just cover your ass.

:cookie:

See bottom of my sig
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A while back I posted how I found that my ex wife's accounts were still on my credit report.

One of the so called AT experts said "I cannot divorce those accounts".

It was clearly spelled out in the divorce what accounts she was keeping and what accounts I was keeping.

Well Experian did the right thing and they took off all 15 accounts that were not mine.

Thank you Experian.

Who the hell cares about your divorce debt agreement, what the outcome is, and what does it have to do with this thread?

Oh and I would love to see the quote from "One of the so called AT experts said "I cannot divorce those accounts". Youre trolling and bashing and as usual CREATING drama.

edit: you never mentioned Trans Union or Equifax. Hope you realize they exist also and are independant of the others. Please dont report your personal details here, because, like mine, no one really cares. Just cover your ass.

:cookie:

See bottom of my sig

If youre this much of a coward online I cant imagine IRL. Deflect and ignore. The Dave way.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackangst1
If youre this much of a coward online I cant imagine IRL.

Deflect and ignore. The Dave way.

Interesting comments from the Right Wingers lately.

I have met a lot of folks from AT IRL when I lived in Atlanta, New Orleans and Denver from both sides of the rabid Left and rabid Right aisle.

I've extended an open invitation to some pretty rabid Right Wingers that even attack me from another site called TFN something that had quite a few guys that were banned from AT but were let back in when the Mods were outted and the system changed.

They have declined to meet.

I am certainly not the one deflecting or ignoring. It has been shown time and time again that is the mastery of your side of the aisle, Spinning and Dodging. You guys can never stay on topic. Wonder why that is?

You're right on one thing though.

There is only one Dave way just as there is the Dittohead, Hannity and GOP way.

It is obvious you choose the Dittohead, Hannity and GOP way for the direction and leadership of this country. That's fine. You stay the course.

Hopefully enough real Americans have woken up from that insanity.

If you want to call that "The Dave Way". Then fine, thank you very much.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
You are a fool Dave. I used to feel sorry for you, now I can't even bring myself to have pity on you. You deserve every bad thing that happens to you.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Back on topic.

My Countrywide prediction in the beginning of the year was spot on.

My second prediction of huge Company to be in be trouble long before it came to light:

10-5-2007 Washington Mutual third-quarter profits take massive hit

SEATTLE - Washington Mutual Inc. said Friday that the weak housing market and the recent mortgage crunch will lead to a 75 percent drop in its third-quarter net income, making it the latest financial institution to warn investors it took a major hit over the summer.

Washington Mutual said its loan loss provision for the quarter will total $975 million. The provision exceeds net charge-offs ? loans written off as having no chance of being recovered ? by $550 million. Loss provisions, on top of paying current charge-offs, are used to cover future losses.

The company will also write down the value of various loans and portfolios by about $410 million.

Washington Mutual will write down by $150 million the value of $17 billion in loans that it was originally intending to sell, but instead moved to its investment portfolio after it could find no buyers in the secondary markets.

Another $150 million in write-downs will be taken in the company's trading securities portfolio. Washington Mutual will also take $110 million in write-downs on investment grade mortgage-backed securities it is holding to sell to investors.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The very core of corporate corruption is on trial here but I'm sure they will come away unscathed as usual.

10-6-2007 Enron investors banking on high court

WASHINGTON - The hopes of Enron investors are riding on a Supreme Court case that may be the last chance at compensation for their losses when the scandal-ridden energy company collapsed.

shareholders in companies that commit securities fraud should not be allowed to sue banks, accountants, law firms and suppliers that allegedly participated in the fraud.

Allowing investors to file class-action lawsuits in such cases would "threaten the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions and the nation's banking system," a coalition of business groups, including the American Bankers Association, said in court papers.

Firms and corporations that enabled companies such as Enron to defraud stockholders should now have to pay, lawyers for the investors say.

"The banks orchestrated the fraud; they weren't sideline viewers," said Patrick Coughlin, the lead lawyer for Enron shareholders. "So when the question comes up about who should be on the hook for Enron, it's the banks."

In both cases, the issue comes down to the meaning of the word "deceptive" in federal securities law.

At stake in the Enron case is more than $30 billion sought by hundreds of thousands of investors from banks that allegedly helped the company, once the nation's seventh-largest, hide billions in debt and make failing ventures appear profitable

For investors, recent developments have gone against them.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted to intervene in the Stoneridge case on the side of investors. But the Justice Department solicitor general, after pitches from President Bush
==============================================
No surprise that Bush wants his buds to be free to defraud everyone.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
More Mission Accomplished:

10-7-2007 Number of homeless families rises

About 1,800 homeless families were in Massachusetts shelters last week ? up from 1,400 in June 2006 and just under 1,200 in June 2005, according to state figures.

There are more families in shelters now than at any time since the inception of the state's family shelter program in 1983, according to the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless.

The overall number of homeless people is up from a few years ago, he said, but nobody can pinpoint an exact number of families because reporting requirements vary widely from state to state.

"Our desire would be to have many more states step up and track the data," Mangano said. "Research and data, that's what should drive the resources that we make available. Instead it's often anecdote, conjecture and hearsay that does that."

Massachusetts is one of the few states that keep government records of the number of homeless families in shelters because state law requires the Commonwealth to shelter any family that meets income and other guidelines.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
I'm not sure how one state's rising of homeless translates across the country. Also, not to mention population increases. I understand stagnant to declining wages are occuring (and have been for some time), but I'm not sure whether homelessness is rising on a grand scale. I wonder if the recent mortgage disaster is increasing this in Mass. (especially when you consider the prices of homes there).
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The very core of corporate corruption is on trial here but I'm sure they will come away unscathed as usual.

10-6-2007 Enron investors banking on high court

WASHINGTON - The hopes of Enron investors are riding on a Supreme Court case that may be the last chance at compensation for their losses when the scandal-ridden energy company collapsed.

shareholders in companies that commit securities fraud should not be allowed to sue banks, accountants, law firms and suppliers that allegedly participated in the fraud.

Allowing investors to file class-action lawsuits in such cases would "threaten the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions and the nation's banking system," a coalition of business groups, including the American Bankers Association, said in court papers.

Firms and corporations that enabled companies such as Enron to defraud stockholders should now have to pay, lawyers for the investors say.

"The banks orchestrated the fraud; they weren't sideline viewers," said Patrick Coughlin, the lead lawyer for Enron shareholders. "So when the question comes up about who should be on the hook for Enron, it's the banks."

In both cases, the issue comes down to the meaning of the word "deceptive" in federal securities law.

At stake in the Enron case is more than $30 billion sought by hundreds of thousands of investors from banks that allegedly helped the company, once the nation's seventh-largest, hide billions in debt and make failing ventures appear profitable

For investors, recent developments have gone against them.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted to intervene in the Stoneridge case on the side of investors. But the Justice Department solicitor general, after pitches from President Bush
==============================================
No surprise that Bush wants his buds to be free to defraud everyone.

Wait, I thought shareholders are the owners, I guess only on paper that is why when people say companies do what is in the best interest of the shareholders I just laugh :laugh:
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
More Mission Accomplished:

10-7-2007 Number of homeless families rises

About 1,800 homeless families were in Massachusetts shelters last week ? up from 1,400 in June 2006 and just under 1,200 in June 2005, according to state figures.

There are more families in shelters now than at any time since the inception of the state's family shelter program in 1983, according to the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless.

The overall number of homeless people is up from a few years ago, he said, but nobody can pinpoint an exact number of families because reporting requirements vary widely from state to state.

"Our desire would be to have many more states step up and track the data," Mangano said. "Research and data, that's what should drive the resources that we make available. Instead it's often anecdote, conjecture and hearsay that does that."

Massachusetts is one of the few states that keep government records of the number of homeless families in shelters because state law requires the Commonwealth to shelter any family that meets income and other guidelines.

One of the greatest socialist bastions in the nation has homeless?! Clearly this is a case to empower your stranglehold. Even though that has nothing to do with the homeless.

To say that the United States population is larger should be a no-brainer, yet here we go with a headline and its underlying messages.