Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

San Francisco is just stupid

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorpika, Oct 21, 2020.

  1. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    8,756
    1,579
    1,383
    Sep 14, 2008
    CAREN Act: San Francisco Supervisors Approve Ban On Racist Calls To 911

    So you see some guy breaking into your neighbor's house, but he isn't white so you just assume he is fixing the back door instead of jimmying it so you don't get sued? Or you ignore the sketchy looking dude who has been keeping an eye on your neighbor and she gets raped because you didn't want to risk it? How would one party prove intent in a civil trial or is it assumed the call was for nefarious reasons?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    5,371
    1,636
    1,568
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Seems easy to me..

     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,971
    763
    948
    Apr 16, 2007
    What's the issue?

    False calls to 911 are illegal anyway.

    But if it's done with the "specific intent" to harass a person because of their race, like the birdwatching Karen, they should definitely get their ass sued over that too. Of course they probably already had that right. So this act might not actually do anything at all. I think the language "specific intent" covers your concern about more legitimate 911 calls, where a person credibly thinks they are witnessing a crime. If a reasonable person thinks a crime might be taking place, then there would be no "specific intent" to harass.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. kygator

    kygator GC Hall of Fame

    2,665
    73
    303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Does SF really have a problem with people calling 911 with the specific intent to discriminate or is this just a perceived issue because of social media?
     
    • Winner Winner x 8
    • Like Like x 1
  5. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,139
    823
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    San Francisco has a history of leading the nation in certain kinds of legislation long before they become nationally popular. I don't really mind redundant laws when said laws are meant to provide protections to historically marginalized groups. It's not like SF was creating a law regarding farm subsidies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    8,756
    1,579
    1,383
    Sep 14, 2008
    So what's wrong with the existing law? If you make a fake 911 call, you face jail time. Is this really a massive problem or the result of some politician trying to get credit for creating laws based on a few viral videos? The downside is that people hear it's illegal to report minorities and they could get sued so they don't do it. How do you determine "specific intent"? Even dumbass "Permit Patty" had a point that the kid was operating a business without a permit, which is illegal. So does she lose her lawsuit because she is probably biased or win on the merit of her complaint?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,971
    763
    948
    Apr 16, 2007
    What’s wrong with existing law?Nothing.

    What’s wrong with this additive law? Nothing.

    Why are we discussing seemingly pointless San Fran city council ordinances? No idea.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 2
  8. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    8,756
    1,579
    1,383
    Sep 14, 2008
    If it discourages people from reporting potential crimes then I would say there is something wrong with it. And if you would prefer to discuss Trumo for the 86,548th time then go to one of those threads. You arent required to reply to this one.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,626
    1,278
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Seems like a better idea than criminalizing such calls, the "see something say something" society needs to wind down.
     
  10. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,626
    1,278
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    What if it discourages people from running to the government anytime they see a black person walking down the sidewalk or a person they don't know in their neighborhood simply minding their own business?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,626
    1,278
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Ultimately though, as with anything like this, proving intent will be extremely difficult, though in a civil case the burden of proof will be lower.
     
  12. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,971
    763
    948
    Apr 16, 2007
    Making a false 911 call is illegal.

    Threatening someone with a 911 call over their race should be too, San Francisco should have spelled out more specific penalties. Otherwise I’m not even sure what this does. I would have assumed the victims of these Karen’s already had a right to sue the false accusers (not just the city), but maybe having a law on the books helps the legal machinations.
     
  13. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,626
    1,278
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
  14. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,971
    763
    948
    Apr 16, 2007
    Why would this discourage people from reporting crimes? Sounds like it only addresses “standing on the sidewalk while black” reports. Actually, because of the “specific intent” the law may not even be that strong.

    There is a burden of proof. It requires proof of intent, so like the cocker spaniel Karen who didn’t like being told to put a leash on her dog ”I’m gonna call and tell them an African American is assaulting me”. She outed herself. That is specific intent AND a criminal false report. How many other cases are that clear? Probably not a whole lot. But maybe it has a nominal effect on people who would make race assumptions without seeing an actual crime.
     
  15. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,626
    1,278
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    I don't understand why everything has to be a crime. I think civil penalties like fines or community service are more appropriate for things like this. I'm wary of turning people into criminals over things like this.
     
  16. jmac83

    jmac83 GC Hall of Fame

    1,118
    171
    278
    Apr 9, 2007
    Good luck proving discriminatory intent, although plaintiffs can get a good laugh out of forcing defendants to pay for lawyers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    8,756
    1,579
    1,383
    Sep 14, 2008
    You are missing the point by trying to parse the law. Most people will hear of the law, think there is a risk to reporting a minority and just not do it. Even if they believe they are in the right and might prevail in a civil trial, it would still cost money to hire a lawyer and go through the process. So unless I could prove someone was trying to break into a house and had video and stuff, I wouldn't report it. Even then I might say I don't want to get involved. If there was justice in the world then yeah those Karens would have to pay for it. In the real world though you have to weigh the costs and benefits. A few cases that go viral on Twitter isn't worth a general chilling of people willing to report potential crimes IMO.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,097
    502
    418
    Jun 14, 2014
    How can it both discourage people from reporting real crimes and not discourage people from reporting fake crimes?
     
  19. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,626
    1,278
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Isn't that the idea?
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  20. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,971
    763
    948
    Apr 16, 2007
    Do you think “swatting” should be just a fine - or a slap on the wrist?

    I think it mostly depends on the severity. If someone makes an innocent mistake, even one based on racial prejudice, then no of course it should not be criminal. Apparently that’s what San Fran thinks too! As they are just considering it civil, I think it would be better if they just spelled out the fines. I..e $1000 for first offense, $10,000 for 2nd offense, and go from there. They are basically just stating a person has a right to sue. But doesn’t a person pretty much always have a right to sue (except where you’ve signed your rights away to a corporation)?

    But if you show intent AND make the false report, knowingly filling a false report is already criminal even without the race angle. If you ratchet it up to Swatting someone, I’d even consider that felonious level.