Dalelorenzo's GDI Blog

Democrats Blame Republicans for Defunding Police

Most of us recall as children get into a dispute with another baby and then blaming him for starting a fight. When Mom approached "youve said", “he reached me first.” The other child disavows it and accuses you of thumping him firstly.

As adults we become more sophisticated when lying. That’s why White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said last week in a briefing that “Some might say that the other party was for defunding the police...” all because congressional Republicans won’t sign off on two “infrastructure” proposals.

Psaki is channeling the line of the working day from Democrats who want to divert attention from Democratic mayors and city councils across the country who have voted to take money away from police agencies, compelling cops to quit, retire and becoming it difficult to attract brand-new drafts.

The happenings say otherwise, that’s if realities content anymore.

Oakland, California, a city run and devastated by Democrats for years, decided to cut the police budget by $ 18 million while crime is spiraling out of control. Shootings in Oakland have increased by 70 percentage, homicides by 90 percentage and carjackings by 88 percentage. Crimes, assaults, and other crimes have also significantly increased.

Anyone who doesn’t see a connection between cutting police budgets and rising crime is inhaling narcotic, which by the way is becoming law in more countries.

At least 13 other cities have chipped police funds, municipalities all run by Democrats.

Forbes magazine is keeping track. Perhaps the most ridiculous decision, among many, is one made by the city council in Austin, Texas. Forbes reports it “vot( ed) unanimously to cut $ 150 million( roughly one-third) from the police budget, reinvesting much of that summing-up in social programs, including menu access, brutality prevention and abortion access.

How does “abortion access” reduce violent and property crime, specially since abortion is violence against innocent unborn human life?

It’s not that social programs are an untried policy to reduce crime. Trillions have been spent on them. “Midnight basketball” was tried during the Clinton administration on the theory that shooting hoops would dissuade teens from shooting each other. Like so many other feel-good curricula, this one failed to reach its stated destination. At least in that basketball bill was a provision to hire 100,000 added police officers.

The rationale we have the law and police officers sworn to enforce it( and politicians who make words to uphold the law) is that there are people who won’t obey the existing legislation under any circumstances. The left has used incidents of police brutality and alleged racist behavior to advance an schedule that sufferings the most people who want and need police shelter.

TV interviews of residents in cities and places with massive minority populations have shown they don’t want fewer police, but more. They don’t feel safe and now neither do increasing numbers of police officers who horror for their lives and occupations if they attempt to apprehend suspects.

Democrats have not been able to get apart with their ludicrous allegation that Republicans are responsible for defunding police without a compliant media and the supposed disappearing of Trump-era fact-checkers.

Thomas Jefferson was right when he said about liars: “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, discovers it much simpler to do it a second and third time,' til at length it becomes habitual...”

Ms. Psaki, are you and your peer Democrat places great importance?

Read more: newsbusters.org


5 Stages of Violent Crime

The 5 Places of Violent Crime

Most beings discover cruelty as a random event. But actually, violent acts, and crimes in general, follow a fairly regular process. Since the ultimate species of soul justification is avoiding a fight absolutely, understanding the crime process and distinguishing the signs of potential violence can help you stay safe.

There are different ways to describe the process of violent attacks, but one of the most popular was developed by Marc MacYoung. It is used by the police and military as well as firearm and soul justification instructors.

This process is divided into 5 theatres. The first 3 stagecoaches are where criminals "set up" the crime, which is where awareness can help you avoided a viciou encounter.

The last 2 stages involve the physical criticize, which is where self defense procedures come into play.

Stage 1: Intent Stage 2: Interview Stage 3: Positioning Stage 4: Attack Stage 5: Reaction

Let’s take a brief look at each of these stages.

Stage 1: Intent When criminal matters devotes a viciou accomplishment, it is always a voluntary select. Except for those who suffer from a severe mental illness, beings don’t exactly snarl and abruptly start curving a pierce at you. Even when a criminal appears to act on the spur of the moment, the act itself is always scheduled on some stage, consciously or subconsciously.

In addition, there is always some statu of mental and physical grooming. It may be putting on a liberate sweatshirt to hide a weapon, its determination to take money of persons who shows an easy target, or simply a wish to take out exasperations on someone because the criminal is having a bad day.

In most cases, this prep starts “tells” that broadcast the intent. It "couldve been" obvious, such as keeping one or both paws obscured to grasp a weapon, or it could be very subtle, such as slightly more rapid breathing or noses searching people as they saunter by.

It’s important to be aware of your encloses and listen to your gut when it tells you that something doesn’t look or feel right about person or persons or situation.

Stage 2: Interview The interview is a test to be determined whether you’re a good casualty. It’s called an "interview" because in many cases, it’s actually oral communications with you. For precedent, the criminal might ask you something, such as "Hey man, you got the time? " or "Can you spare a couple dollars? " How you greeting requires a lot of information.

How firm or feeble is your expres? Do you procreate direct nose contact or do you look at the field? Does your body language hint statement or suspicion? Do you examine strong or weak? The criminal is looking for someone who will provide little or no resistance and poses no threat. Even if there is no verbal communication, you could be telegraphing what sort of victim you might be exactly by how you’re dressed, how you walk, your length and posture, and your level of awareness.

You don’t have to be a 6' 5" Navy Seal with bellying muscles and a steely gaze to deter offenders and "fail" the interview. But you’re less likely to be chosen if you appear to be in good health, self assured, and aware of your surroundings.

Stage 3: Positioning Acquire the criminal has the intent to commit a violent achievement and has identified one or more potential martyrs, the next stage is to get into a position to opening the attack.

While you might think of delinquents as morons, and in most cases you’d be pretty close to the truth, never underestimate the "street smarts" of those who regularly perpetrate violent acts. Tactical positioning is something they understand and you probably don't, which demonstrates them a big advantage.

Positioning involves several elements, including how close the criminal can get to you before you realize what’s happening, whether you have an escape route, how many parties are nearby who might render aid or call the police, etc. What the criminal is aiming for is to get up close and surprise you at a few moments when you can’t easily flee or effectively resist. He doesn’t want a fight. He is intended to overtake you.

Stage 4: Attack At the current stage, the criminal has chosen you as a scapegoat and has made the decision to get what he wants from you. This could be a verbal attack or a physical affect or a combination.

For example, criminal matters may yell at you aggressively to hand over your billfold. Or criminal matters may throw a sucker punch to disorient you and gain immediate conformity for surrendering your wallet. Or criminal matters may draw a knife threatening to stab you unless you give him your pouch. You’ll never know what kind of attack is coming until it happens.

In the first 3 theatres, you have a chance to avoid the conflict. But once you are the; victim of an attack, you must focus on self defense and make a fast decision about how you will respond. Your response options stray from trying to run away to drawing a weapon to stop the attack. Since every situation is different, simply you can make this decision.

Plus, if you’re properly aware of what is going on, you should be assessing the criminal just as he is assessing you up to the point of the two attacks. How much of a threat is he? Do you have reason to believe he is armed? Is he alone or does "hes had" cure nearby? How dedicated is he to doing you impairment?

Stage 5: Reaction This theatre is about how the criminal reacts to the attack and to your response. Does he get a thrill from the two attacks? Does he increase his violence when you defy? Does he receded when he gets what he misses or does he just wanted to prolong the situation? Just as you won’t know what sort of attack is coming, you won’t know how the criminal will react once the attack is launched. You can’t know what is going on in someone else’s head, so this is where a simple mugging could turn into a murder or assault.

You need to be prepared to respond effectively to both the two attacks and to how the two attacks develops.

While there is much more to know about violent attacks, for now, merely realize that crime is a process and is almost never random. As a crime is developing, you have a chance to spot the signals and avoid the violence. This is always your goal: to earn the fight by understanding it before it happens and by-passing it before it starts.

This is an excerpt from our Free Report, 7 Proven Strategies to Survive the Legal Aftermath of Armed Self Defense. Click here to request a follow.

Read more: secondcalldefense.org


Judges now rely on secret AI algorithms to guide their sentencing of criminal defendants

Imagine for a moment that you’ve been convicted of a crime, and are awaiting sentencing. The attorney hands a computer-generated analysis to the judge that says, based on a secret analysis performed by a complex algorithm, that you should receive the harshest possible sentence, since according to the algorithm you are highly likely to commit future crimes. Your attorney, hoping to rebut this conclusion, asks how the report was prepared, but the adjudicate powers that neither you nor your advocate are entitled to know anything about its preparation, simply the results. The adjudicator then proceeds to impose the maximum sentence, based on this secret calculation.

If that sounds like something out of a dystopian science fiction fiction, well, it’s going on right now in various positions throughout this country.

Jed Rakoff is a federal neighborhood evaluate for the Southern District of New York. A onetime federal prosecutor appointed to the bench in 1996, Rakoff has is president of the some of the most significant white-collar crime subjects in this country. He is generally recognized as one of the leading arbiters on insurances and criminal law, and as a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books, he often writes about tale and emergent criminal justice issues.

His latest essay address the increasingly widespread use by criminal prosecutors of artificial-intelligence-based( AI) computer programs or algorithms to support convicting recommendations for convicted criminal defendants. These platforms, using various categories of controversial sociological conjectures and methods, are primarily used to assess recidivism( the propensity of a defendant to devote future crimes) and they are often given ponderous force by reviewers in determining the length of the sentence to be imposed. They too factor in decisions regarding naming bail or attachment restraints. The consideration of potential recidivism is based on the theory of “incapacitation: ” the idea that criminal sentencing should serve the dual purpose of punishment as well as preventing a accused from devoting future crimes, in order to protect society.

Rakoff catches the purposes of these predictive algorithms troubling for a number of reasons , not the least of which are their substantiated error rates and propensity for inherent ethnic bias. He notes that the possibilities on which they purportedly analyze a person’s propensity to commit future crimes are often untested, erroneous, and otherwise questionable. Nonetheless, his most recent essayfor the NYRB, entitled “Sentenced by Algorithm”and reviewing onetime region magistrate Kathleen Forrest’s, When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, implicates even more disturbing questions raised by the introduction of artificial intelligence technology into our criminal justice system.

Is it fair for a adjudicator to increase a defendant’s prison time on the basis of an algorithmic value that foresees the probability that he is fully committed future crimes? Many nations now say yes, even when the algorithms they use for this purpose have a high error rate, a secret design, and a demonstrable racial bias.

One of the basic concerns about the use of these programs is their fundamental fairness to criminal defendants. In the past, when a prosecutor wanted to emphasize, for purposes of sentencing, that a convicted defendant might perpetrate future crimes, he/ she would rely mainly upon that defendant’s past criminal record, his demonstrations of remorse( or paucity thereof) for the crime committed, his demeanor, the testimony of various evidences as to his reference, and maybe most importantly, his potential for rehabilitation under a less stringent sentencing regimen. Apparently a public advocate would also manufacture these considerations paramount in support of clemency for his client.

But the introduction of a quasi-scientific basis upon which to determine a defendant’s propensity to commit future crimes--crimes which have yet to occur, if they occur at all--threatens to undercut the human element a judge often uses in make this resolutions. The information that such computer-driven ratings carry an imprimatur of supremacy and certainty are assuredly part of their attractiveness to evaluates beleaguered by mobbed dockets and heavy time constraints. Nor are judges immune to the fact that such tools can effectively stipulate shield to close or questionable decisions involving sentencing of crimes; for referees subject to the political limitations of reelection, that factor alone may unduly influence their reliance on them.

These are serious enough concerns. Nonetheless, according to Rakoff, the biggest problems with these algorithms is that they don’t actually work.

Studies hint they have an error rate of between 30 and 40 percentage, mostly in the form of wrong projections that accuseds will commit more crimes in the future. In other texts, out of every ten accuseds who these algorithms foresee will recidivate, three to four will not. To be sure , no one knows if justices who don’t use such programs are any better at foreseeing recidivism( though one study, mentioned below, finds that even a random sample of laypeople is as good as the most frequently used algorithm ). But the use of such programs gives a technical facade to these assessments that the great error rate belies.

As Rakoff memoranda, the most frequent of these AI computer algorithms employed to detect potential recidivism is called COMPAS , produced by a private company called Northpointe, which does business as Equivant. The COMPAS product is currently being used in various governments, including New York, California, and Florida. In Wisconsin the legal deserves of COMPAS were addressed in what Rakoff describes as “perhaps the leading case” evaluating their usage in criminal prosecutions, Loomis v. State of Wisconsin.

In all such cases , a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court denied appeal procedures by Mr. Loomis, a defendant who had entered into a plea bargain for two nonviolent piques, but argued his sentence was still excessive, principally as a result of pre-sentencing report submitted by the prosecution that relied, in part, upon COMPAS’s assessment of his likely recidivism. Loomis argued that as the company’s algorithm was classified as a “trade secret, ” he had inadequate means to evaluate its reliability in order to be allowed to to rebut its conclusions.

Somewhat perversely, the court denied Loomis’ appeal, concluding that even if he didn’t have access to its means of preparation, he had an opportunity to rebut the COMPAS knows with evidence of his own. Further, the court apparently felt content with the admonition that the COMPAS arises should simply be viewed by the court as one of several guidelines regarding an individual’s threat to public safety, and not the primary factor in determining the severity of the sentence. As Rakoff drily sees, as a practical matter that distinction is preposterous 😛 TAGEND

If a sentencing evaluate, unaware of how inaccurate COMPAS really is, is told that this “evidence-based” instrument has composed the accused as a high recidivism risk, it is unrealistic to suppose that she will not give substantial load to that tally in determining how much of the defendant’s sentence should be weighted toward incapacitation.

Worse, special courts actually expressed the opinion that the algorithm have indicated methodical ethnic bias in its past assessments. Rakoff mentions from the court’s opinion 😛 TAGEND

A recent analysis of COMPAS’s recidivism values located upon data regarding 10,000 criminal accuseds in Broward County, Florida, concluded that black defendants “were far more likely than white-hot defendants to be incorrectly guessed to be at a higher risk of recidivism.” Likewise, white-hot defendants were more likely than black defendants to be incorrectly signalled as low-toned risk.

Meanwhile, according to Rakoff, the company itself has disclosed validation studies which “show an error rate of between 29 and 37 percent in predict future murderou behaviour and an error rate of between 27 and 31 percent in promise future nonviolent recidivism.” In other utterances, as Rakoff memoes, the software is potentially wrong “about one-third of the time.”

Whether or not COMPAS actually incorrectly categorizes Black defendants as recidivist at a higher rate relative to white defendants has been a matter of contravention. ProPublica released its own analysisin 2016( the one referenced by Rakoff) , based on a databaseof over 10,000 criminal defendants in Broward County, Florida, and located systematic “mis-flagging” of Black defendants as potential future crooks. Northpointe, which produces COMPAS, questioned their analysis and ProPublica responded to Northpointe’s rebuttal . In 2018 an analysis in the Washington Postconcluded that because Northpointe refused to release its algorithm, claiming it was proprietary, it was impossible to determine whether the COMPAS product supported biased bias.

But that fact should be disqualifying in and of itself. The court’s seeming approval of the COMPAS program despite its known error rate and despite the facts of the case that the company refuses to provide specifics of its algorithm to Mr. Loomis or others is probably the most disturbing facet of this decision. It suggests that the court will basically sanction any experiment judge’s deference to this alleged technical indicate without being required to delve to any handy level into the exact methodology or reliability underlying that sign. As Rakoff tones, in different contexts of a sentencing hearing there is no requirement under current law that an algorithm such as COMPAS be subjected to more rigorous scrutiny, such as that required of expert evidences or indicate during an actual test.

In a civil case, letting potentially erroneous manifestation to be considered could offset the distinctions between a carnival or unjustified conviction for coin shatterings. But in the criminal context that distinction can literally eliminate years of a person’s life.

Rakoff condemns the purpose of applying analytical produces like COMPAS on the inspiration by the National Center for State Courtroom to become the sentencing process more “data-driven, ”and he opines that the entire process of basing the severity of criminal convicts based on “incapacitation, ” i.e. prevention of future crimes, should be re-evaluated. Specifically, Rakoff concludes the focus should be on rehabilitating criminal accuseds rather than trying to prevent crimes that have never been committed in the first place. In the unlikely event of such a metamorphosi in criminal jurisprudence, Rakoff believes that if makes like COMPAS become more ubiquitous judges are going to become more reliant on them, with the end result of more emphasis on preventing future crimes( through more severe sentencing) than reforming felons through rehabilitative curricula that don’t involve incarceration.

One point that Rakoff too might have raised comes from the fact that although these AI algorithms are intended to assist judges in determining appropriate sentencing, they are primarily a implement manipulated by counsels. The vast majority of criminal accuseds( and the largest part of public defenders) do not have additional resources or wherewithal to challenge the results of these assessments, specially if the use of datasets and algorithms remain secret. Even if such data are disclosed, the forensic analysis needed to evaluate their credibility would expense more than most accuseds are able to pay.

The employment of this technology thus reinforces the disparity between the supremacy on the part of states and the individual, one that seems to have simply been accepted out of expedience. Notably, Rakoff too quotes a study carried out by investigates at Dartmouth University which expressed the view that of the( guessed) 137 factors COMPAS might use to evaluate a person’s potential to commit future crimes, the same predictive analysis can be achieved by utilizing exclusively two factors--a person’s age and criminal biography, which a judge is probably capable of assessing without the assistance of artificial intelligence.

Beyond the Orwellian prospect of having the course of one’s future is contingent upon an unknowable, secret algorithm, the adoption of COMPAS and products like it highlights the unsettling intersection between the very human issues of criminal justice and the inherently barbaric aspects of technology. And while that roadway may seem easier or more easier for referees and prosecutors, it isn’t consequently the one we ought to be following.

Read more: feeds.dailykosmedia.com


DMX’s Family Warns of Scammers Raising Money for His Funeral

DMX's family is NOT fastened for currency, and is NOT inviting the public to chip in for burial expenses -- and if you see anything online saying otherwise ... it's [...] '

Read More ...

Read more: etrafficlane.com