They want to seize the guns of law-abiding citizens so they can seize even more power and let criminals run wild. Since the shooter was not white, the Sacramento tragedy was barely mentioned in the national news. Same thing happened with San Bernardino, Boulder, etc.
Equity is the most important consideration for any Corrections system. Until racial equity has been achieved, there is no racial justice.
Releasing African-American inmates to restore equity is the primary objective of any Corrections system.
Focus on reoffending blames the victim (the inmate) instead of society. Before we can achieve equity, we must ascribe the blame for all crime on society… and, in particular, on white privilege.
Californians understood that former Chief Justice Rose Bird’s primary focus was what would now be called restoring equity. Since she didn’t believe that criminals were responsible for their own behavior, the prison doors must be thrown open so that the victims of inequity… inmates of color… may be freed.
This makes you no different than any other garden variety progressive. Why do you support strong controls? How about strong rules allowing regular people / non criminals to carry a concealed pistol? Do you want to win? Be different.
"I worked for George Soros’ foundation in the 1990s, and believe he means well..."
Your 'belief' and his 'meaning well' are irrelevant. He's some eastern european non-american who has been on record as wanting an "open society", and has advocated unamerican policies his entire life. I thought "rich white old men" were the problem. Why does he get a pass, and since when did we start ignoring actions and results?
This is one of the most naive statements I've ever heard from someone of your caliber. If you want to win, you have to be different. Dancing around the edges will get you nowhere.
What Yuri Bezmenov said. I'll add that it sounds like, "Smiley" Martin was a hero in the mold of St. George Floyd in his taste for violence against women. Another noble victim of "White Supremacy", and "Institutional Racism", whose depravity and identity is conveniently buried while The Great Replacement we see on TV and the Internet shows a different reality. Then, the depravity's tragedy is used to whip up support for disarming the law abiding citizenry.
Mr. Schellenberger I appreciate the work you have done with Apocalypse Never. I find your tap dancing around issues without taking a strong stand or sometimes taking a stand and then taking the other side in your rhetoric frustrating. Here you admit that gun control and the obscenely tyrannical notion of suing someone who sold another person a gun would not have prevented the crime then go on to say that you are for strong gun control.
I get it. You are running for election. I ignore your messages for support in a Campaign for Governor of California because this type of political messaging and equivocation is what got California and our nation into this spot. "The Left" has long since abandoned acting in good faith and the "The Right" is starting to wake up to the fact that the old rules were burned and buried long ago. Equivocation just isn't going to get it done. The Left takes ten miles for every inch given. Their safety-at-any-cost brigades are the gravest of dangers to us all.
As for Soros, and his good intentions, I don't buy it. If he funds these organizations, then he is responsible. His intentions are irrelevant, if not highly suspect given given how many decades he has been funding the destruction of our nation and the people who are bent on it. Consequences matter. May there be consequences proportional to the hell that the purported best of intentions is leading to.
You’re using right-wing trigger words – –eg “Soros” “crime agenda”… Labels! That never helps to engage the better part of my liberal-centrist mind. And you don't parse the issue fully. Because this guy should’ve been monitored, are you saying we don't incarcerate too many people, and need to find alternatives? Because this guy found a gun that was already outlawed, does that mean we don’t need gun reform? These are not arguments but zero-sum thinking that undermines seriousness. Justlook at the wacko comments you stir up – – like the one that begins “They want to”…
So, Michael, Cali has some of the strictest gun laws in the Nation. When you write that you "support strong gun controls" What does that mean? huh? Or is it just pandering and meaningless rhetoric. What do you actually propose and why should it work when none of Cali's law seem to work now?
Are there any articles that track policy with populations/releases/crime? I see a ton of anecdotes (which all seem incredibly cut and dry) but I never see a macro picture tying it all together. Anywhere in press even in conservative places even though it seems like the biggest policy slam dunk you could ever have because the picture seems so clear. Genuinely curious.
Below is a frustrating email interaction I had with a male SJW and leader of BLM.
Part 1
Me:
"The former Travis County deputy suspected of fatally shooting three people in Northwest Austin Sunday was left largely unsupervised by the criminal justice system months after a woman asserted in sworn affidavits that she and a child feared he would hurt them.”
The above is the elephant in the room that no one in the prison abolition/restorative justice movement wants to address: the terrorism suffered by women and children because men are under-incarcerated for sexual and “domestic" violence.
There is concern about the criminal justice system doing too much to violent predators but zero concern about the criminal justice system doing too little to protect potential victims.
Our society must revoke the license we’ve given to violent predators to terrorize the people within their own communities, especially women and children.
It is just as unacceptable to let murderers, rapists, and batterers go free as it is to let abusive cops go free.
Anyway, Thank You for Caring,
Male SJW:
Penny, I understand that emotions are high. We're all reeling from this. But there is a concerted effort by the right to distract from gun control by attempting to blame bail and supervision for this tragedy. Please don't fall for it. There was no legal avenue to detain this person indefinitely before they've even been tried (nor should there be), and no evidence that an ankle monitor would've done anything to prevent this, especially since this person retained visitation rights to one of the victims. However, if this person had actually been denied access to guns, this tragedy could very well have been prevented. But that would take stronger gun control laws which right-wingers desperately want to avoid.
Secondly, if you respect people and their values, even if you don't agree with their opinions, I'd humbly submit that you should ask them questions before making accusations, especially unfounded ones based off of one article from one of the most conservative reporters in town. I don't treat people I respect the way you've written me, and if you wish to stay in contact with me, please refrain from approaching me in such a manner again before seeking an explanation and clarification on my positions.
I'll just close by saying that the criminal punishment system has treated domestic violence as a crime for only about 40-45 years, and the issue has only gotten worse. Enormous sums have been dumped into police and jails during this time specifically to address this issue, and much like the war on drugs, it hasn't helped at all. We not only lead the world in incarceration, we lead the world in gun violence. We desperately need to treat this issue more seriously, but that does not mean doubling down on failed systems that cause more harm than help. I believe there is another way, but that way has not been tried, and how this case was treated is certainly not emblematic of anything resembling restorative or transformative justice so disparaging these concepts in this context is completely unfounded.
Of course I want gun control - But surely you know that men do not need guns to murder women and children.
Men without guns have been raping and murdering women and children for millennia, and they do so at very high rates in countries with strict gun control laws like the UK and Australia.
You wrote "There was no legal avenue to detain this person indefinitely before they've even been tried (nor should there be), and no evidence that an ankle monitor would've done anything to prevent this, especially since this person retained visitation rights to one of the victims.”
Actually, there is something called preventative detention that could have saved the lives of 35 year old Amanda Broderick, 17 year old Alyssa Broderick, and 17 year old Willie Simmons.
In both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania there is a law called 58a which allows a district attorney to request that a defendant be held without bail until trial if his danger to the victim or community is deemed serious enough.
Amanda Broderick knew that her husband was a danger to her and to her daughter. If the justice system had prioritized her safety and used 58a to keep Mr. Broderick in jail until his trial for sexually assaulting a child, Amanda, her teenage daughter, and teenage Willie Simmons would still be alive and well.
But predators’ “rights” and freedom have always been prioritized by the Left over vulnerable people's safety.
You wrote:
"the criminal punishment system has treated domestic violence as a crime for only about 40-45 years, and the issue has only gotten worse.”
Where is your evidence that domestic and sexual violence has gotten worse? Are you suggesting that we should decriminalize domestic violence (again) to make things “better”?
Since the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994 domestic violence has decreased by around 60% and rape has decreased by about 58%.
According to the CDC: "In a systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration, CDC researchers found that funding associated with the 1994 U.S. Violence Against Women Act was one of only three strategies to demonstrate significant effects on preventing sexually violent behavior in a rigorous outcome evaluation (DeGue et al., 2014).”
Do you think the CDC is “fake news”?
Too often, when the CDC makes a claim that doesn’t correspond to one’s political beliefs, the facts tend to be discounted. Please do not become a part of this anti-science trend.
Also, it is extremely painful that you are denying the misogyny in the lenient way the criminal “justice” system treated Stephen Broderick. You seem to be attempting to make this purely an issue of gun control, when it is primarily an issue of domestic & sexual violence.
You have “All Lives Mattered” this horrific murder.
I desperately want to believe that the Restorative Justice Movement takes into account the profound difference and unique category of domestic and sexual violence as a systemic form of terrorism that is just as serious as police terrorism against the Black and Indigenous communities.
But every time I challenge a supporter of the Restorative Justice Movement I get the same vague claims that there is a better way to handle sexual and domestic violence than by prosecuting and incarcerating these criminals.
No one ever tells me what that better way is, nor do they ever provide evidence that this “better way” makes vulnerable people safer.
Where is your data that refusing to prosecute or incarcerate rapists and batterers leads to less rape and battery? I would love to see it.
And comparing the prosecution of domestic and sexual violence to the "war on drugs" - given that using and selling drugs are non violent “crimes" - is deeply disturbing to me. Surely you do not consider rape and battery to be non violent crimes. Right?
I apologize for not being more respectful in my communication with you. I’m afraid I am not very ladylike when it comes to the issues of rape and murder.
I will attempt to be more deferential in future communications.
Male SJW:
If more incarceration were the answer to our problems, as the most incarcerated nation, we'd be the safest country in world history. We are far from it. Increasing the power and breadth of carceral systems that replicate slavery and Jim Crow will disproportionately and unjustly harm the poor and communities of color, including women and survivors of harm. The violence emanating from the state in the form of material depravation, lack of housing, policing, prisons and imperialism manifests in our interpersonal relationships. I believe there is a different path to ending that violence. I admire your advocacy and tenacity, so I'm sorry that you've chosen to approach me in such a manner and blame people that have had no role in crafting our current system for the violence that emanates under its watch. Best of luck to you. Goodbye.
Regards,
Advocate | Analyst | Organizer
Pronouns: he, him, his
Me:
You stated: "If more incarceration were the answer to our problems, as the most incarcerated nation, we'd be the safest country in world history"
But you have failed to address which crimes people are incarcerated for. Because they certainly aren’t incarcerated for sexual and domestic violence for any real length of time - nor are cops usually incarcerated for police violence.
Would refusing to incarcerate Derek Chauvin lead to less police violence?
Has the failure to incarcerate most killer cops led to less police violence? Or more police violence?
Will you be lobbying to protect Derek Chauvin from incarceration?
Why or why not?
Yet you lobby for protecting rapists and batterers from incarceration. Why not also lobby to protect the police from incarceration? According to you, imprisoning them for their violence won’t help.
You also claim that expanding the carceral state (I presume by “expand” you mean prosecuting and incarcerating rapists and batterers) "will disproportionately and unjustly harm the poor and communities of color, including women and survivors of harm.”
But how would keeping Stephen Broderick incarcerated until his trial have harmed Amanda Broderick and Alyssa Broderick? Aren’t they members of the “community of color”? Aren’t they survivors of harm?
You cannot deny that incarcerating Stephen Broderick - as Amanda Broderick wanted - would have saved three innocent lives - all of whom were people of color.
When you claim "The violence emanating from the state in the form of material depravation, lack of housing, policing, prisons and imperialism manifests in our interpersonal relationships” you seem to be blaming the poor for violence, when the poor are more likely to be VICTIMS of violence than perpetrators of violence. Also, violence is a huge contributing factor to intergenerational poverty.
There is a domestic & sexual violence pipeline to poverty and homelessness.
You also accused me of blaming those who "have had no role in crafting our current system for the violence that emanates under its watch.”
We all have a role in maintaining the current system.
We are all complicit in one way or another for the harms of our society. None of us get to pretend to be innocent little lambs, regardless of race or gender.
Anyway - the SJW never responded.
Unfortunately, victims of violent crime are a HUGE inconvenience to those who want to "defund the police" and "abolish prisons".
They want to seize the guns of law-abiding citizens so they can seize even more power and let criminals run wild. Since the shooter was not white, the Sacramento tragedy was barely mentioned in the national news. Same thing happened with San Bernardino, Boulder, etc.
Newsom Administration Lies:
People don’t kill people… guns kill people.
Equity is the most important consideration for any Corrections system. Until racial equity has been achieved, there is no racial justice.
Releasing African-American inmates to restore equity is the primary objective of any Corrections system.
Focus on reoffending blames the victim (the inmate) instead of society. Before we can achieve equity, we must ascribe the blame for all crime on society… and, in particular, on white privilege.
Californians understood that former Chief Justice Rose Bird’s primary focus was what would now be called restoring equity. Since she didn’t believe that criminals were responsible for their own behavior, the prison doors must be thrown open so that the victims of inequity… inmates of color… may be freed.
The majority of violent crime is done by a minority of the criminals. Lock up violent felons and do not let them out.
You lost me at Soros ...
Michael you said "I support strong gun controls". Such as? What "gun controls" does CA not have that you would like to see implemented?
Why do you support "strong gun controls"? Do you think that criminals obey them or do you want more controls on law-abiding citizens?
This is really idiotic thinking, IMO.
"I support strong gun controls..."
This makes you no different than any other garden variety progressive. Why do you support strong controls? How about strong rules allowing regular people / non criminals to carry a concealed pistol? Do you want to win? Be different.
"I worked for George Soros’ foundation in the 1990s, and believe he means well..."
Your 'belief' and his 'meaning well' are irrelevant. He's some eastern european non-american who has been on record as wanting an "open society", and has advocated unamerican policies his entire life. I thought "rich white old men" were the problem. Why does he get a pass, and since when did we start ignoring actions and results?
This is one of the most naive statements I've ever heard from someone of your caliber. If you want to win, you have to be different. Dancing around the edges will get you nowhere.
They still think they can create gun laws that criminals will obey.
They really will just use anything to crack down on law abiding citizens bring armed.
They refuse to admit that the way they’ve handled things drives gun sales more than anything else.
They have a clear agenda.
What Yuri Bezmenov said. I'll add that it sounds like, "Smiley" Martin was a hero in the mold of St. George Floyd in his taste for violence against women. Another noble victim of "White Supremacy", and "Institutional Racism", whose depravity and identity is conveniently buried while The Great Replacement we see on TV and the Internet shows a different reality. Then, the depravity's tragedy is used to whip up support for disarming the law abiding citizenry.
Mr. Schellenberger I appreciate the work you have done with Apocalypse Never. I find your tap dancing around issues without taking a strong stand or sometimes taking a stand and then taking the other side in your rhetoric frustrating. Here you admit that gun control and the obscenely tyrannical notion of suing someone who sold another person a gun would not have prevented the crime then go on to say that you are for strong gun control.
I get it. You are running for election. I ignore your messages for support in a Campaign for Governor of California because this type of political messaging and equivocation is what got California and our nation into this spot. "The Left" has long since abandoned acting in good faith and the "The Right" is starting to wake up to the fact that the old rules were burned and buried long ago. Equivocation just isn't going to get it done. The Left takes ten miles for every inch given. Their safety-at-any-cost brigades are the gravest of dangers to us all.
As for Soros, and his good intentions, I don't buy it. If he funds these organizations, then he is responsible. His intentions are irrelevant, if not highly suspect given given how many decades he has been funding the destruction of our nation and the people who are bent on it. Consequences matter. May there be consequences proportional to the hell that the purported best of intentions is leading to.
You’re using right-wing trigger words – –eg “Soros” “crime agenda”… Labels! That never helps to engage the better part of my liberal-centrist mind. And you don't parse the issue fully. Because this guy should’ve been monitored, are you saying we don't incarcerate too many people, and need to find alternatives? Because this guy found a gun that was already outlawed, does that mean we don’t need gun reform? These are not arguments but zero-sum thinking that undermines seriousness. Justlook at the wacko comments you stir up – – like the one that begins “They want to”…
So, Michael, Cali has some of the strictest gun laws in the Nation. When you write that you "support strong gun controls" What does that mean? huh? Or is it just pandering and meaningless rhetoric. What do you actually propose and why should it work when none of Cali's law seem to work now?
Very sad to hear this is going on.
Are there any articles that track policy with populations/releases/crime? I see a ton of anecdotes (which all seem incredibly cut and dry) but I never see a macro picture tying it all together. Anywhere in press even in conservative places even though it seems like the biggest policy slam dunk you could ever have because the picture seems so clear. Genuinely curious.
Huge fan of yours, but you lost me at “Soros funded.” Sounds Qanon-y
This happens ALL THE TIME.
Below is a frustrating email interaction I had with a male SJW and leader of BLM.
Part 1
Me:
"The former Travis County deputy suspected of fatally shooting three people in Northwest Austin Sunday was left largely unsupervised by the criminal justice system months after a woman asserted in sworn affidavits that she and a child feared he would hurt them.”
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/04/19/stephen-brodercik-austin-suspected-shooter-met-bail-rules-judge-says/7280036002/
The above is the elephant in the room that no one in the prison abolition/restorative justice movement wants to address: the terrorism suffered by women and children because men are under-incarcerated for sexual and “domestic" violence.
There is concern about the criminal justice system doing too much to violent predators but zero concern about the criminal justice system doing too little to protect potential victims.
Our society must revoke the license we’ve given to violent predators to terrorize the people within their own communities, especially women and children.
It is just as unacceptable to let murderers, rapists, and batterers go free as it is to let abusive cops go free.
Anyway, Thank You for Caring,
Male SJW:
Penny, I understand that emotions are high. We're all reeling from this. But there is a concerted effort by the right to distract from gun control by attempting to blame bail and supervision for this tragedy. Please don't fall for it. There was no legal avenue to detain this person indefinitely before they've even been tried (nor should there be), and no evidence that an ankle monitor would've done anything to prevent this, especially since this person retained visitation rights to one of the victims. However, if this person had actually been denied access to guns, this tragedy could very well have been prevented. But that would take stronger gun control laws which right-wingers desperately want to avoid.
Secondly, if you respect people and their values, even if you don't agree with their opinions, I'd humbly submit that you should ask them questions before making accusations, especially unfounded ones based off of one article from one of the most conservative reporters in town. I don't treat people I respect the way you've written me, and if you wish to stay in contact with me, please refrain from approaching me in such a manner again before seeking an explanation and clarification on my positions.
I'll just close by saying that the criminal punishment system has treated domestic violence as a crime for only about 40-45 years, and the issue has only gotten worse. Enormous sums have been dumped into police and jails during this time specifically to address this issue, and much like the war on drugs, it hasn't helped at all. We not only lead the world in incarceration, we lead the world in gun violence. We desperately need to treat this issue more seriously, but that does not mean doubling down on failed systems that cause more harm than help. I believe there is another way, but that way has not been tried, and how this case was treated is certainly not emblematic of anything resembling restorative or transformative justice so disparaging these concepts in this context is completely unfounded.
Regards,
Male SJW
Advocate | Analyst | Organizer
Pronouns: he, him, his
Part 2
Me:
Of course I want gun control - But surely you know that men do not need guns to murder women and children.
Men without guns have been raping and murdering women and children for millennia, and they do so at very high rates in countries with strict gun control laws like the UK and Australia.
You wrote "There was no legal avenue to detain this person indefinitely before they've even been tried (nor should there be), and no evidence that an ankle monitor would've done anything to prevent this, especially since this person retained visitation rights to one of the victims.”
Actually, there is something called preventative detention that could have saved the lives of 35 year old Amanda Broderick, 17 year old Alyssa Broderick, and 17 year old Willie Simmons.
In both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania there is a law called 58a which allows a district attorney to request that a defendant be held without bail until trial if his danger to the victim or community is deemed serious enough.
Amanda Broderick knew that her husband was a danger to her and to her daughter. If the justice system had prioritized her safety and used 58a to keep Mr. Broderick in jail until his trial for sexually assaulting a child, Amanda, her teenage daughter, and teenage Willie Simmons would still be alive and well.
But predators’ “rights” and freedom have always been prioritized by the Left over vulnerable people's safety.
You wrote:
"the criminal punishment system has treated domestic violence as a crime for only about 40-45 years, and the issue has only gotten worse.”
Where is your evidence that domestic and sexual violence has gotten worse? Are you suggesting that we should decriminalize domestic violence (again) to make things “better”?
Since the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994 domestic violence has decreased by around 60% and rape has decreased by about 58%.
https://www.pcar.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdfs/vawa_what_to_know-508d.pdf
Where is your data to the contrary?
According to the CDC: "In a systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration, CDC researchers found that funding associated with the 1994 U.S. Violence Against Women Act was one of only three strategies to demonstrate significant effects on preventing sexually violent behavior in a rigorous outcome evaluation (DeGue et al., 2014).”
Do you think the CDC is “fake news”?
Too often, when the CDC makes a claim that doesn’t correspond to one’s political beliefs, the facts tend to be discounted. Please do not become a part of this anti-science trend.
Also, it is extremely painful that you are denying the misogyny in the lenient way the criminal “justice” system treated Stephen Broderick. You seem to be attempting to make this purely an issue of gun control, when it is primarily an issue of domestic & sexual violence.
You have “All Lives Mattered” this horrific murder.
I desperately want to believe that the Restorative Justice Movement takes into account the profound difference and unique category of domestic and sexual violence as a systemic form of terrorism that is just as serious as police terrorism against the Black and Indigenous communities.
But every time I challenge a supporter of the Restorative Justice Movement I get the same vague claims that there is a better way to handle sexual and domestic violence than by prosecuting and incarcerating these criminals.
No one ever tells me what that better way is, nor do they ever provide evidence that this “better way” makes vulnerable people safer.
Where is your data that refusing to prosecute or incarcerate rapists and batterers leads to less rape and battery? I would love to see it.
And comparing the prosecution of domestic and sexual violence to the "war on drugs" - given that using and selling drugs are non violent “crimes" - is deeply disturbing to me. Surely you do not consider rape and battery to be non violent crimes. Right?
I apologize for not being more respectful in my communication with you. I’m afraid I am not very ladylike when it comes to the issues of rape and murder.
I will attempt to be more deferential in future communications.
Male SJW:
If more incarceration were the answer to our problems, as the most incarcerated nation, we'd be the safest country in world history. We are far from it. Increasing the power and breadth of carceral systems that replicate slavery and Jim Crow will disproportionately and unjustly harm the poor and communities of color, including women and survivors of harm. The violence emanating from the state in the form of material depravation, lack of housing, policing, prisons and imperialism manifests in our interpersonal relationships. I believe there is a different path to ending that violence. I admire your advocacy and tenacity, so I'm sorry that you've chosen to approach me in such a manner and blame people that have had no role in crafting our current system for the violence that emanates under its watch. Best of luck to you. Goodbye.
Regards,
Advocate | Analyst | Organizer
Pronouns: he, him, his
Me:
You stated: "If more incarceration were the answer to our problems, as the most incarcerated nation, we'd be the safest country in world history"
But you have failed to address which crimes people are incarcerated for. Because they certainly aren’t incarcerated for sexual and domestic violence for any real length of time - nor are cops usually incarcerated for police violence.
Would refusing to incarcerate Derek Chauvin lead to less police violence?
Has the failure to incarcerate most killer cops led to less police violence? Or more police violence?
Will you be lobbying to protect Derek Chauvin from incarceration?
Why or why not?
Yet you lobby for protecting rapists and batterers from incarceration. Why not also lobby to protect the police from incarceration? According to you, imprisoning them for their violence won’t help.
You also claim that expanding the carceral state (I presume by “expand” you mean prosecuting and incarcerating rapists and batterers) "will disproportionately and unjustly harm the poor and communities of color, including women and survivors of harm.”
But how would keeping Stephen Broderick incarcerated until his trial have harmed Amanda Broderick and Alyssa Broderick? Aren’t they members of the “community of color”? Aren’t they survivors of harm?
You cannot deny that incarcerating Stephen Broderick - as Amanda Broderick wanted - would have saved three innocent lives - all of whom were people of color.
When you claim "The violence emanating from the state in the form of material depravation, lack of housing, policing, prisons and imperialism manifests in our interpersonal relationships” you seem to be blaming the poor for violence, when the poor are more likely to be VICTIMS of violence than perpetrators of violence. Also, violence is a huge contributing factor to intergenerational poverty.
There is a domestic & sexual violence pipeline to poverty and homelessness.
You also accused me of blaming those who "have had no role in crafting our current system for the violence that emanates under its watch.”
We all have a role in maintaining the current system.
We are all complicit in one way or another for the harms of our society. None of us get to pretend to be innocent little lambs, regardless of race or gender.
Anyway - the SJW never responded.
Unfortunately, victims of violent crime are a HUGE inconvenience to those who want to "defund the police" and "abolish prisons".
They can come off as truly heartless sometimes.