Gyroscopic Investing

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:21 am Geez tech, thanks for spoiling my breakfast - again!

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:21 am Wonder what our dear mayor has to say about this. So now it's not just about the bail, it's about the fact that prosecutors have to delay charging people because of the 15 day rule.

Also I'm not sure the crazy Democrats who put this in place really understood what bail is all about. It's not about the money. It's about keeping people safe from criminals. If someone can't post bail, then they are locked up. Score one for safe. If someone does post bail, they have a big incentive not to misbehave. Only having a large amount of money at risk can really ensure that. If that's considered unfair then I have another solution: instead of bail, THEY ALL GET LOCKED UP. Period. I'd be fine with electronic monitoring for some nonviolent offenses (e.g. white collar crime, selling stuff illegally on the sidewalk, being caught with fireworks on July 4 etc) but the mayor's definition of "nonviolent" truly boggles the mind. Like, say, in this case.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:18 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:21 am Geez tech, thanks for spoiling my breakfast - again!

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just trying to help you make up your mind to leave.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:19 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:18 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:21 am Geez tech, thanks for spoiling my breakfast - again!

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just trying to help you make up your mind to leave.

Appreciated!!!

Going to be watching this carefully. If the politburo in charge of this city continues along its current path, it will certainly force the issue. Especially if real estate prices start being impacted.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:06 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:19 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:18 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:21 am Geez tech, thanks for spoiling my breakfast - again!

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just trying to help you make up your mind to leave.

Appreciated!!!

Going to be watching this carefully. If the politburo in charge of this city continues along its current path, it will certainly force the issue. Especially if real estate prices start being impacted.

I can't imagine that they won't be impacted. You won't be the only one to figure out that it's too dangerous to live there.
Are you ready to retire? Or would you get a license in the state you move to?

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:25 pm I'd probably just retire. Chances are good I'd continue working as a consultant and keep up with general scholarly activity too.

Let's hope it doesn't happen. I'm curious if, this time around, the financial powers in this city step in to stop the madness. That would be Wall Street firms and a couple large private universities. I know they didn't act last time around, but history can be a powerful teacher.

Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:39 pm I have a lot of issues with the new law which was ill conceived. But this doesn't strike me as a good example of the problems in it. The old cash bail system (which is still in place in much of the country) essentially favors wealthy defendants who can afford to post bail over poor ones who often can't, and who are locked up. Since bail is not supposed to be punitive and is only intended to deal with flight risks, this was problematic. Add to this a long history of DAs abusing the bail system to keep indigent defendants locked up for months, and in a few cases for years, without ever being brought to trial and there was clearly a need for reform. But as usual, New York's leaders couldn't pour piss from a boot with instructions spelled out in the heel.

Several other states figured out how to fix the problem by limiting cases where cash bail could be applied... BUT... they also wrote an exception into the law that would allow bail and detention in cases where the suspect had a track record that would cause reasonable people to believe they posed a serious threat to the community. This would include convicted violent criminals and gang members etc. Of course New York made no such provision. So... some people who in a sane society would not be allowed out of jail, will be.

All of which said, I'm not seeing the beef with this case. The suspect is accused of vehicular manslaughter. Is there reason to suspect he is going to kill witnesses or flee the country? The crime is terrible and if he is convicted he should be jailed. But, this was not likely an intentional act of violence. If he has an extensive criminal record that would be an issue. Again though I'm not seeing it. Bail is not supposed to be punishment. That comes after the defendant is convicted.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:46 pm Why would he show up for his trial? Nothing would happen to him if he just skipped town. If you don’t see how this makes New York much more dangerous, I give up.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:46 pm

Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:39 pm I have a lot of issues with the new law which was ill conceived. But this doesn't strike me as a good example of the problems in it. The old cash bail system (which is still in place in much of the country) essentially favors wealthy defendants who can afford to post bail over poor ones who often can't, and who are locked up. Since bail is not supposed to be punitive and is only intended to deal with flight risks, this was problematic. Add to this a long history of DAs abusing the bail system to keep indigent defendants locked up for months, and in a few cases for years, without ever being brought to trial and there was clearly a need for reform. But as usual, New York's leaders couldn't pour piss from a boot with instructions spelled out in the heel.

Several other states figured out how to fix the problem by limiting cases where cash bail could be applied... BUT... they also wrote an exception into the law that would allow bail and detention in cases where the suspect had a track record that would cause reasonable people to believe they posed a serious threat to the community. This would include convicted violent criminals and gang members etc. Of course New York made no such provision. So... some people who in a sane society would not be allowed out of jail, will be.

All of which said, I'm not seeing the beef with this case. The suspect is accused of vehicular manslaughter. Is there reason to suspect he is going to kill witnesses or flee the country? The crime is terrible and if he is convicted he should be jailed. But, this was not likely an intentional act of violence. If he has an extensive criminal record that would be an issue. Again though I'm not seeing it. Bail is not supposed to be punishment. That comes after the defendant is convicted.

Why would he show up for his trial? Nothing would happen to him if he just skipped town. If you don’t see how this makes New York much more dangerous, I give up.