this post was submitted on 22 May 2024

174 points (97.3% liked)

News

23375 readers

2790 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

174

A young Chicago mother shot to death. How the system failed her. (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Stopthatgirl7 to c/news

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Maria Roque was just 34 years old when she was shot and killedon the steps outside her West Side Chicago home, in front of her 8-year-old daughter.

Her daughter and her 14-year-old son both witnessed Roque take her last breath.

In the weeks before she was killed, Roque repeatedly took all steps domestic violence victims are told to take. She got a protection order against her former boyfriend, Kenneth Brown. She also repeatedly went to the Chicago Police Department for help. She filed one police report after another and never gave up.

But the system failed her.

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

The reason is because we DON'T pay the Police Officers ENOUGH! If we paid them ENOUGH of our Tax Dollars they would Do Their Jobs!

-Republicans trying to Defund Teachers, one of the only Professions that CAN PREVENT CRIME!

[–] yeahiknow3 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Worthless system. After the initial threats and subsequent violence that guy should have been on death row. Idk why we cut people so much slack. Seriously.

[–] Speculater 44 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"Oh golly gee y'all, we will try to do better in the future."

-Local Police Chief

Meanwhile this woman is dead because of their lack of empathy, education, and basic human dignity. But they'll sleep well every night for the rest of their lives while her children never will again.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They'll continue to get promotions while failing the people they're meant to protect.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

"They" were created to defend rich people, ie: slave owners, and the rabble aren't part of that demographic.

[–] SupraMario 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't know why you all still hold this, but the police have no obligation to protect and serve.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

In a functional society they would, instead we have low IQ ex military / military rejects in acting they're power fantasies for the corporate overlord's

[–] Zanudous 2 points 6 months ago

They empathize alright with their domestic abusers brethren

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I was with you up until your absurd drive to use the death penalty...

[+] yeahiknow3 -10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Evil people sure are glad they have you to stand up for them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

"Evil" isn't real, it's a word we made up to describe shitty people. Beyond that, until we humans are perfect and never make mistakes, the death penalty is never going to be the acceptable answer. Too many innocent people end up killed by it.

[–] bestagon 2 points 6 months ago

Or the fact that it does nothing to address the causes of crimes that don’t stem from a “risk-reward” assessment and just lets whoever’s left behind have some false sense of having done something

[–] yeahiknow3 -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

What’s extra comical about this claim is that if nihilism were true, as you claim, then a fortiori the death penalty would be completely permissible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

if nihilism is true, as you claim

They made no such claim. They were just noting that your argument uses the word "evil" as if it were a tangible, quantifiable thing, and it absolutely isn't. This doesn't mean that they embrace moral relativism or reject the concept of morality outright, but rather that they recognize you use of "evil" as a rhetorical device in bad faith.

The idea that being against the death penalty implies endorsement of the crimes that land people on death row ("evil" as you call it) is inherently fallacious. One can condemn violent crime without supporting violence as a punishment for crime. If anything, it is consistent with a philosophy of nonviolence.

[–] yeahiknow3 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The only person using rhetoric here is you. There are morally depraved people out there whom we colloquially refer to as “evil.” I don’t know why you insist on having a semantic argument. If “[moral depravity] does not exist,” as my interlocutor claims, then nihilism would indeed be true.

I would also like to point out that the ethical arguments against the death penalty in the scholarly literature are very weak and it remains an open question whether the death penalty is advisable on practical grounds. Morally it’s unlikely that any good argument exists to make it impermissible to kill “evil” people. You can check out the latest edition of any textbook on ethics, such as Living Ethics by Schaffer Landau, which syllogizes a variety of arguments on this topic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The issue here is that you use the arbitrary "evil" label to strip humanity from people who commit wrongs. You've decided that these people deserve the most extreme forms of punishment imaginable, and then pretend that anyone challenging you on that is somehow defending the actions of the people you are asking be killed.

This then leads to the absurd situation where someone says "violence is unacceptable under all circumstances" and you accuse them of abetting "evil" because you demand that everyone want to kill the same people you do.

You honestly don't see the issue here? I mean, you already have to be jumping through some serious mentality hoops to arrive at the conclusion "not killing people is evil", but c'mon now...

[–] yeahiknow3 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Let me again recommended this textbook on Ethics: https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/living-ethics-9780197608876

The death penalty is chapter 20.

Also,

“Death” isn’t (or should not be) a punishment. We don’t “punish” rabid dogs when we euthanize them. Sometimes the alternative is simply worse.
Earlier you said that “evil cannot be quantified” and therefore doesn’t exist. However, quantifiability is not an ontological prerequisite. If it were, then almost nothing would exist, including you and me.
You don’t need to resort to straw men. Respond to my arguments instead of arguing with yourself.
Moral claims wouldn't be “arbitrary” unless nihilism is true, which you’ve denied.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

This being in the US, I suppose if the police had actually reacted in any way to her numerous reports, they would have come over to her house and it would have been them shooting her instead of her ex boyfriend.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

When there is a well documented case of violence, the cops sit on their asses and do jackshit.

When it's time to shoot people in the back though, they have a thousand reasons.

To serve and protect my balls.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I don't want to come off as callous or victim blaming, this is nobody's fault but the murderer and the cops for their refusal to act. However, I would like to take this opportunity to address an issue that is closely related to this one, since it is related.

Gun laws did fuck all to stop this. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and yet this Chicago resident presumably with an IL ID (which would bar him from purchasing firearms out of state), a state police issued FOID card, a mandatory safety course complete with signed affidavit from the instructor, and was approved for a CFP, and since gun sales are banned in the city drove to the suburbs to buy one, still was able to do all that and it didn't prevent him from killing her.

Of course that is assuming he didn't just get one from 600 Breezy or someone, BDs don't check FOIDs.

And in order to protect herself against him if she so chooses, since the police obviously fail and the courts clearly take time, time she ended up not having, she would have to do all the same things, she can't just stroll by O Block and pick one up illegally, if she uses it in defense she'd be fucked, she has to obey the laws, the murderer however can break other laws in service of the murder, "in for a penny in for a pound." Not only did Chicago's "common sense" gun laws do nothing to stop this, they could well have actually prevented her from obtaining a gun legally in the time it takes him to get one illegally, had she been so inclined.

Of course the real failings here are on the police, but every other comment has touched on that, I don't feel the need to jump in the pile. Again, in conclusion, I do not blame this woman who if given the option may not have even wanted to have a gun to protect herself from this man, however clearly he was able to get one and I think it'd be better if victims had an easier time getting them than their assailants. In this case that would mean actually charging him with the crimes he's committed to block his legal access before he murders her, and make legal access less hard for victims like her because we can't actually stop him from getting one illegally.