Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco (2016)
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Flood, scour out, incursion, deluge... it's very rare for a liberal publication such as The Guardian to describe immigration in such negative terms!
That influx does incur real problems! But they are greatly exacerbated by the way they are (not) being solved.
But I'd start by looking at whether "flood" or "deluge" are justified not in terms of positive/negative connotation, but whether they accurately represent the scale of what's going on.
IIRC, post-civil-war in-migration to the US hasn't ever resulted in more than 15% of the total population being immigrants. The CIA World Factbook says the US had 3.9 migrants per 1000 citizens in 2017. Wikipedia says there's a recent rate of about 1 million immigrants per year, about half of which are changing status for people already here.
I'm less sure where to get observations about the portion/influx of tech in the Bay Area or SF itself. But if I were guessing, I'd bet tech pushes up to 20-25% of employmees and activity, and that the influx over the last decade (or in the 90s) is a considerably steeper curve.
One might also consider some qualitative factors. An influx of people of average or perhaps even lower than average means primarily represents an impact on (a) competition in the labor force and (b) demand. Those two things ought to cancel each other out in terms of general economic impacts (or perhaps even work in tandem to drive growth), except where there are supply bottlenecks... say, real estate/housing, especially in a geographically constrained area. So, one might expect the impacts to be outsized in a place like San Francisco vs the United States at large (which has plenty of places with modest population destiny). An influx of people of average to higher-than-average means (say, workers in a field commanding a larger salary than many past residents) would massively magnify this problem.
So... perhaps there are good reasons to treat the volatility and dynamics of tech-focused in-migration to SF/Bay as distinct from the volatility and dynamics of immigration to the US.
Would that mean they weren't counted as immigrants when they first arrived, because they had the wrong 'status'? Or are they counted twice, first when they arrive, and again when they change status?
Edit: It occurred to me, immigration to the US is probably concentrated in the south, so the "15% of total US population being immigrant" is not the most relevant statistic to compare to.
If a city can’t grow to accommodate new and successful industries — despite lavish tax revenue — it seems like policy failure, plain and simple.
Sorry, the page you're looking for can't be found;https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
In addition, I'm quite personally tired of the "they felt threatened" argument. If we are going to give a person such exceptional power (to make arrests, to search a person, and to carry a deadly weapon) it should be suspected that they act with exceptional responsibility, not fear or recklessness. If part of your job description entails that you have the right to kill someone that is a legitimate threat to your own life, you better be 100% sure that that person is a legitimate threat to your own life before you hurt them. Police officers should especially be held to a higher standard, but for some reason they arent, which absolutely baffles me. How do stories exist of cops effectively executing people who are lying on the ground with their hands on their heads, where the cop not only doesn't go to jail, but they keep their job? How is this not absolute insanity?
I worry that you are operating from a misconception here. Cops definitely do not have any special rights to kill another person. Most self-defense legislation reads more or less the same as what you wrote: “...you have the right to kill someone that is a legitimate threat to your own life...”. Police officers have the same right of self defense as anyone else — they are just in that situation a lot more often than most people. Cops are not soldiers and don’t lose their rights as citizens. (Are you asking for cops to be soldiers?)
Cops do have some special rights to restrain people, make arrests, enter people’s property and so forth, just as you described, but killing other people is not one of them.
...you better be 100% sure...
There is only one way to be sure. How is this a realistic standard?
I think you're confusing "de jure" and "de facto" here. Cops may not have such rights enshrined in law, but they don't end up in prison when they flashbang a baby during a no-knock raid either.
Many people -- the earlier commenter among them -- believe that cops have some special grant in law to kill, but this is not the case.
Sometimes judges are lenient with cops; but that's not lawful, and we can't base further laws on stuff that's not lawful.
Cops may not have such rights enshrined in law, but they don't end up in prison when they flashbang a baby during a no-knock raid either.
This is probably negligent homicide and failure to treat it as such is a miscarriage of justice.
Earlier, though, we were talking about a case where a cop is threatened with deadly force or reasonably believes that they are. This falls under self defence. If cops walk away from that, it's not due to special treatment or special laws.
IIRC California is not a "stand your ground" state, in that there is a duty to retreat. So even if the cop did have a reasonable belief that they were being threatened with deadly force, they would also have to believe that there was no way for them to escape the situation.
And even then, most state's "self defence" laws require that the defender not be the instigator of the situation.
Not that there is no way; just that they reasonably couldn't. Like, once someone has drawn a gun on you.
People must generally retreat if they can but cops generally can't retreat -- they have to serve the warrant, perform the arrest or find the briefcase, whatever it was they were dispatched to do.
And even then, most state's "self defence" laws require that the defender not be the instigator of the situation.
Being the instigator isn't really a clear criterion. Consider the case where someone trespasses in my home, and I approach them and tell them to leave, and they draw a gun on me. I am the instigator but it's a situation where I can (and often must) defend myself. If we flip it a little bit -- I am robbing someone's house and they draw a gun on me -- then I am not acting in self defence if I draw a gun on them. They key ingredient is whether I am acting lawfully.
The issue is not "who started it" (which would be tough for the law to deal with) but rather if someone is doing something lawful in a place where they have a right to do it. Police can lawfully approach and detain people and generally badger them in a far wider range of circumstances than other people can -- and indeed that is part of their charter, that's why we have them.
If police are acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation.
----Edit for background follows----
California is a "Castle Doctrine" state. One is presumed to be acting lawfully when one acts against an intruder on one's real property (home, business, &c). In other situations, there must be a clear threat of bodily harm. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-self...
Does the meter reader coming to see how much someone owes the power company not have the option to retreat, then? The FedEx delivery guy dropping off a package? The Uber driver called to pick someone up down the street?
My impression would be that all of those have the option to retreat, even though that will result in their jobs not being completed. So this sounds like a way that cops have 'special rights relating to killing other people', at least to me.
> Being the instigator isn't really a clear criterion. Consider the case where someone trespasses in my home, and I approach them and tell them to leave, and they draw a gun on me. I am the instigator
Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc.
> Police can lawfully approach and detain people and generally badger them in a far wider range of circumstances than other people can -- and indeed that is part of their charter, that's why we have them.
> If police are acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation.
Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs.
No, they don't. With cops though, they are just going to have to come back tomorrow. Not delivering the package is an option, but skipping an arraignment usually is not.
Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc.
In this, we may be close to a meeting of minds.
Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs.
I am not sure how it sounds like that. Does it sound wrong to you if I replace "police" with "anyone" and say "If anyone is acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation?".
What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict.
Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill?
Obviously, because people aren't allowed to kill cops when the cops draw guns on them. Even if they weren't doing anything illegal beforehand.
> What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict.
> Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill?
If the law says "you can kill people in situation X if you got there by method Y (or also Z if you're a cop)" IMO that would be giving cops additional permission to kill. But once again, what's written into the law and what's actually enforced are two very different things, and cops are relatively rarely prosecuted for killings that civilians would be in prison for.
(a) cops have a special grant in law to kill,
(b) or not.
If it’s (a), I guess we should try to find it. If it’s (b), there are some questions to ask around the interpretation of the law with respect to cops.
I would guess that people who thought about this longer and harder than you did came to the conclusion that... they are also just human.
We don’t have to accept “death by cop” as a force of nature any more than we have to accept “death by bacterial infection” - much less so, really, as “death by cop” is an entirely localized problem caused by a policing culture embraced by a very, very tiny percentage of human beings.
It is not a force of nature. It can be changed, and straightforwardly.
People have a right to use lethal force if they reasonably believe they are so threatened. We don't require people to be able to read the label off the side of what someone is pointing at them, to know if it is a genuine Glock or a Tokyo Marui replica.
As long as people are willing to pull guns or gun look-alikes on armed police and similar forces, there will be death by cop.
However, the guardian salivates at the opportunity to blame rich white people for our problems, so im not surprised.
Quite a xenophobic leap to conclusions to blame this on some racist newcomer for such a woke progressive newspaper.
I can’t think of a single person of color that I know, and I know many that has had a poor interaction with the police.
America isn’t a bastion of racial equality, but by and large the police are okay.
I used to have the same feelings as you did from watching the media, but it’s like the medias portrayal is not representative. Just look at their coverage on violent crime, if you watch it you’d believe that everyone is at risk all the time but my county hasn’t had a single assault in the past 5 years.
IMO people are better served looking at these problems as local issues to which the aegis of greater government can help.
I agree broad statements like minorities can't trust the police are ridiculous. Very rarely do you hear Asian man shot by police.
Clearly black Americans(mostly men)have a problematic history in interactions with police , with some great abuse by some departments. Unfortunately, bad cops get protected, so abuse doesn't lead to punishment....BUT also CNN and clickbait media/Twitter outrage manufacturers turn every white cop/black citizen encounter in to a racial episode when it isn't, which further makes black men/boys feel under siege. Even though that isn't the case most of the time. When actual abuse does happen, the well is poisoned already by the clickbait, and (some) of their fellow citizens are not as empathetic.
So now suddenly it's a matter of class not race.
Sounds like a black guy in a suit will have much less problems with the police than a whitie white with a thick gold chain and pants half way down to proudly demonstrate his underwear.
I'm actually a black man.
Those friends I was mentioning who have gone their entire lives without a poor interaction with the police?
Also black men. Worse yet, some of them are immigrant black men with accents.
Racism exists. Police corruption exists. It's a known issue, but its not so systemic that it affects all jurisdictions equally.
As I said, I believe its much better to look at your current locality and ask "can I trust my police?" rather than think about the situation as a national problem.
Now, you might say that I'm lucky, or that I have never broken the law so its a non-issue.
Let me tell you a story. Once, I and two of my friends were in a car smoking marijuana. The police, having heard recent burglaries in the area, were on the look out, and thought it particularly sketchy for a poorly maintained looking car to be parked inside such a good neighborhood. As they turned on their lights, one of my friends gets the bright idea that he should run---yes run from the police. He doesn't get very far, and we're all gathered together and the story comes out in torrid detail. We're sure we'll all go to prison, but the worst that happens is that we are driven to our parents' houses and given an unofficial warning.
That's it. No writes ups, no tickets. The worst part of that night (for me) was that our stash was confiscated.
This is the kind of story you'd expect to only happen to a white guy? Perhaps even a rich white guy, right?
Nope, it happened to 3 black guys who ended up going to university on scholarships.
This stuff isn't rare. Lot's of time, the police are reasonable but people's bias colors their view of it. One of my friends, who was in the car with me, used to say (when we were younger) that this night was an example of the cops unfairly brutalizing us because we were frisked and he was handcuffed initially---he's the one that ran. Yet if you look at it from another angle, we were the criminals caught in possession of drugs who got a slap on the wrist.
Consider yourself lucky. Here's more anecdata: few years ago, I was biking back home (Upper Haight) and missed a stop sign. For context, I'm latino, south american especifically, but look kindof european. The police officer stopped me, really courteous asked for my papers and before looking at them explained really calmed that I had missed a stop sign. I gave him my chilean driver's license (I had not applied for my CA license at that time) and then he immediately changed the tone. He tooked my papers to his car and then came back telling a story how much I liked to ignore rules and I had a "pretty long record" (I have not, that was first ticket in the US). It didn't matter what I said, he became more agitated and violent and only because I kept my cool and basically said yes to everything (frisking and lots of very inappropriate questions), he gave me a ticket and left. I'm sorry, but in here I just avoid cops, I don't trust professionals that have poor training, are poorly paid and can't control themselves when there is some danger, which is the thing they should excel at. I'm obviously generalazing here, but this is also reflected in the linked article and, IMO the core of the Nieto murder.
I dunno, the comment framing this article as "anti-immigration" is firmly straddling the two.