Patterico's Pontifications

10/29/2012

Meet Your Future Neighbor, Part 1 of a Series (No on 36)

Filed under: General,No on 36 — Patterico @ 7:17 pm

The California District Attorneys Association has done an excellent study (.pdf) of the horrible Proposition 36 to gut three strikes. In the study they have several examples of people who might be released if this turkey passes. I’ll be featuring several in an ongoing series, starting with this one:

ERVIN COLE

In 1984, Cole was convicted of robbery using a firearm. In 1991 he was convicted of burglary. A year later, Cole was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. Cole was sentenced to prison for each of these convictions. After his release, he violated parole five times from 1989 through 1997. During this same time, Cole was also convicted of two misdemeanors.

In 1999, Cole was observed driving a stolen vehicle, and police officers attempted to stop him. Instead of stopping in response to police lights and sirens, Cole accelerated rapidly and led police on a chase. He swerved in and out of traffic, reached a speed of more than 85 miles an hour on a residential street, ran two red lights and three stop signs, swerved into opposing lanes of traffic, and nearly crashed into several other cars. Cole finally collided with another vehicle, spun out of control, and his vehicle rolled over. Cole’s passenger and the driver of the other vehicle were injured. Cole fled on foot and was tackled by a police officer.

Cole pled guilty to felony evading arrest, car theft, and felony hit-and-run. He admitted two strike priors, and was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life.

If Cole were re-sentenced pursuant to Proposition 36, his new maximum potential sentence would be no more than eight years and eight months in state prison, reduced further by custody credits since it would be a determinate-term sentence.

We learn a few things here — things I already knew, but that (perhaps) you didn’t. Felony evading is not a “serious or violent” felony. Nor is felony hit and run. Nor, obviously, is car theft.

Remember that the next time you think that non-strikes are no big deal.

65 Responses to “Meet Your Future Neighbor, Part 1 of a Series (No on 36)”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  2. Proposal: When you can demonstrate that you can be trusted to behave like a rational, adult, civilized human being, then and only then will you be released into the general public.

    Alan Kellogg (297baa)

  3. Patterico, thank you for these posts as I had no idea how to vote on this, nor on the DA position. Now I know to vote against this, and I have insight on the other.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  4. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen TV talking heads (Jane Velez-Mitchell for example) claim that the California state prisons are filled with non-violent drug offenders.

    DN (543479)

  5. I have been passing along your explanations of how passing this proposition puts us at greater risk. Thank you for informing us.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  6. There’s no such thing as a bad boy!

    Father Flanagan, Boys Town (e1d89d)

  7. “In Los Angeles, [Prop. 36 supporter] Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley [Patrick's boss] said Proposition 36 mirrors a policy his office has followed since he was elected in 2000. “L.A. County has not gone to hell in a handbasket because we have a moderate three-strikes policy,” he said.”

    leo marvin (45619c)

  8. Barry wishes he could get 3 strikes after the last time he went bowling…

    Gazzer (a98701)

  9. “In Los Angeles, [Prop. 36 supporter] Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley [Patrick's boss] said Proposition 36 mirrors a policy his office has followed since he was elected in 2000. “L.A. County has not gone to hell in a handbasket because we have a moderate three-strikes policy,” he said.”

    Two points.

    1. No, it doesn’t mirror his policy, because it removes all discretion to seek 25 to life in cases (like the above) where a person deserves it.

    2. How do we know what the effects have been? Has any newspaper done a study of how many additional murders have been committed because of the policy? The number is not zero. I can personally assure you of that. I have seen cases where someone had two strikes, then received a third felony under Cooley, received less than 25 to life, and then committed murder.

    Take Lily Burk as just one example. (I have seen others, plural.) That was blamed on a clerical error on a rap sheet, but why would anyone investigate the nature of the second strike if it was going to be stricken anyway?

    Patterico (8b3905)

  10. Decisions like this don’t just impact California. Some of the released inmates will migrate to other states, so they could be anyone’s neighbors.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  11. Isn’t John Wesley Ewell another example of a murderer who benefited from leniency on several potential third strikes? Ewell’s case is (slowly) working its way through the LA County legal system.

    DN (ad6cba)

  12. That was a real subtle form of intimidation there, Leo. There is no reason to insert “Patrick’s boss” there, unless you are attempting to bring our host’s employment into the disucssion.

    JD (318f81)

  13. From what I’ve read there have been several early releases due to “typos” and other errors.

    But like I say, the people of this state seem to have a death wish.

    Patricia (e1d89d)

  14. Intimidation? You’re hilarious, JD. Are you under the impression Steve Cooley doesn’t know he’s Patrick’s boss? How do you even imagine this alleged intimidation was supposed to work?

    Why would I mention it? To point out to anyone not familiar with Cooley’s relationship to Patrick that someone with as much or more authority on this issue as Patrick has, disagrees with him. It’s pretty simple. (Someone, by the way, who can’t be smeared and dismissed, as you routinely do and are trying to do to me here, on some deranged theory of dishonesty or bad motives.)

    leo marvin (45619c)

  15. I am not smearing you, Leo. I pointed out that you tried to drag our host’s boss into this, which was about as subtle as a brick. Your motive was noble, to be sure.

    JD (436368)

  16. Yes, JD, baselessly accusing someone of intimidation is a smear. As is the snide insinuation in your last comment that my motive wasn’t in fact noble. So when are you going to explain how mentioning Patrick’s boss was supposed to be intimidating?

    leo marvin (45619c)

  17. That is my opinion, I am entitled to it. It seemed then, and still seems that it was gratuitous, and needlessly dragged our host’s employment into this. Maybe Patterico has a different view. But given your history of great concern, it is an entirely reasonable opinion. Again, there was no reason to drag our host’s boss into this in the manner in which you did. Your bombast and feigned offense will be considered and given the weight it deserves.

    I would refer you to the site rules. There are very few.

    JD (436368)

  18. Comment by DRJ — 10/30/2012 @ 7:17 am

    Rest easy DRJ. Unless they’re completely certifiable, they won’t go to TX which has a bad habit (from the perp’s viewpoint) of actually enforcing the Death Penalty – if they even survive to get into a Court of Law.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  19. I neither agree nor disagree with Proposition 36. I do disagree with mandatory sentencing but it does not seem to me that that is California law. Whether, under certain circumstances, judges should have the discretion to impose extended sentences — I agree with Patterico.

    nk (875f57)

  20. circumstances = defined criteria (pa tay toe, paw ta toe)

    nk (875f57)

  21. if soros is for it that means it’s bad for america

    everyone knows that

    happyfeet (502829)

  22. Soros is a very bright guy. He survived the Nazis, as a child, by selling other Jews to them for the death camps. Now, what could you possibly find wrong in a person like that?

    nk (875f57)

  23. he’s a very sick twist

    happyfeet (502829)

  24. I wonder if he’s the one inflicting this “taylor swift” thing on america

    happyfeet (502829)

  25. Of course you’re entitled to your opinions, JD. It just has nothing to do with whether or not they’re smears. At least it’s good to know that the next time Joe Biden takes a position contrary to Barack Obama’s, I can count on you not to mention the contradiction because that would “needlessly drag[ Biden's] employment” into it.

    Calling it a “feigned offense” when I object to being accused of intimidation for innocuously mentioning what every regular reader of this site already knows is more ironic humor. Compounding the irony, you continue trying to impugn my motives by bringing up an old ad hom that was false then and is still false now. But if you really want to relitigate that I’ll be happy to post the links again which prove it’s false.

    Which rules? I see only this:

    “Your comments must follow our copyright policy. Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning. Profane language will place your comment in moderation. If you are following the rules and your comment does not appear, do not assume I banned you; instead, e-mail me.”

    leo marvin (45619c)

  26. There’s something called simple courtesy. BTW, I like the handle leo marvin.

    nk (875f57)

  27. Leo — I don’t think your attempt to play “Let’s Steve and Patrick fight” is going to go far, especially since you had to drag a newspaper story into it. You do know what happens to the dude who tries to get brothers to fight?

    htom (412a17)

  28. htom, even if you believe that for God knows whatever reason I really want Patrick and Cooley to fight, why you’d think I’d think I could ever make that happen, and even if I did, why I’d think Patrick’s blog was a smart place to try making it happen, is all beyond me.

    Yes, nk, I’m a big fan of courtesy. Please tell me how you think I’ve been discourteous. And thank you, but of course who doesn’t love leo marvin? (sound clip)

    leo marvin (45619c)

  29. (Hmmm, for some reason that link location changed. This ought to work.)

    leo marvin (45619c)

  30. DA Cooley is not blogging here, so why bring the man in the conversation? If you have read my comments…? I do not like mandatory sentences, and I do not like prisons for that matter, but what else can we do? Australia no longer accepts convicts.

    nk (875f57)

  31. I don’t know what you want to relitigate. Again, your concer and indignity is noted.

    Bringing our host’s employment into the discussion is strictly against the rules here. Always has been.

    JD (436368)

  32. “DA Cooley is not blogging here, so why bring the man in the conversation?”

    Really? “Not blogging here” is a reason not to quote the opinion of a public official with expertise and moral authority on the issue in discussion? If that’s discourteous, you may as well just shut down this site, and the rest of the blogosphere with it.

    Patrick linked to a study by the California District Attorneys Association, opposing Prop. 36. I linked to an opposing opinion by a prominent California District Attorney who happens, as virtually everyone here knows, to be Patrick’s boss. I can’t imagine anything more routine or innocuous in a blog comment. Not only don’t I believe it was at all discourteous (nor was that even remotely my intention), but I’d be surprised if Patrick took it as such.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  33. Like JD said, your concern is duly noted for the record, leo.

    But, please tell us how many prisoners you have visited in jail, and how many you have met at 5:00 am upon their release with a tiny money for busfare and a donut?

    nk (875f57)

  34. ;) I finally got the “why” Chicago Police release their prisoners at 5:00 am, from a retired shift commander (lieutenant). It’s a slow shift, they have nothing else to do except sign prisoners out.

    nk (875f57)

  35. , but I’d be surprised if Patrick took it as such.

    I am sure much would surprise you. Not just this.

    JD (436368)

  36. “Bringing our host’s employment into the discussion is strictly against the rules here. Always has been.”

    I could swear I learned who Patrick’s employer is from his own posts, which makes that rule strange and IMO kind of silly. Regardless, if it’s really the rule that nobody but Patrick is allowed to mention his employer’s identity, I apologize for breaking it and I won’t do it again. But is it really still the rule, or is it possible it just used to be the rule (quite properly IMO) before Patrick’s name and employment status were public knowledge? I’m curious whether he really cares about maintaining the cone of silence, now that he himself makes no secret about who his boss is. Are we also supposed to avoid “Patrick,” and refer to him only as “Patterico?” Whatever the rule is, like I said, I’ll respect it, but I would suggest you at least post it someplace if you don’t want others making the same mistake. There’s no reason anyone without prior knowledge of such a rule would intuit it when Patrick’s details are so well known.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  37. I can’t imagine anything more routine or innocuous in a blog comment.

    I can! All you had to do was say that “LA County has a moderate three strikes policy and the consequences are acceptable in my opinion.” Then you’d have to back that up. for example, make assertions about what the consequences are, and arguments for why that’s acceptable. Make an argument explaining how there’s no distinction between LA county in practice and the effect of this proposition ( and then explain why the proposition is still necessary)

    Why didn’t you reply to Patterico’s answer to your comment?

    You have repeatedly noted who the blogger works for (amid bizarrely telling us that we already know what you need to repeatedly tell us), but you don’t want to talk about the merits of your argument?

    As far as I know, Patterico doesn’t discuss his work, his coworkers, etc. I think that’s a good policy, and I think common courtesy would be to avoid bringing up topics he doesn’t want to directly respond to.

    The psychos who have attacked Patterico’s employment with lawfare and attacks on his family have put Pat’s fans on edge about creepy behavior, so we reasonably ask you to keep your arguments on the merits.

    Why don’t you show us that you’re here in good faith for discussion by reading Patterico’s response to you and replying with arguments that stand on their own, with no appeals to authority, and with whatever basis you have for your view that the LA County policy is the same as prop 36, and your basis for thinking the consequences of that policy are acceptable. If you’re just making an assumption, that’s cool so long as you acknowledge it.

    Show us you’re here for discussion instead of telling us.

    Dustin (73fead)

  38. From what rock do they come under?

    nk (875f57)

  39. Dustin, if someone disclosed Patrick’s name and employment information without Patrick’s permission, that’s despicable. But however it came out, the world where those details are undisclosed doesn’t exist any more, as evidenced by the fact that I learned Patrick’s boss (i.e., He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named)’s identity from Patrick! If Patrick wants a rule on his blog that certain public knowledge shouldn’t be spoken except by him, that’s certainly his prerogative and I’ll respect it. Just don’t ask me not to think it’s silly.

    Patrick disputed He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named’s statement on Prop. 36. Unless you think I’m He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named’s sock puppet, how can I know how he’d respond? Yes, quoting He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named was an appeal to authority. I don’t pretend to be an expert on every subject I vote on, so sometimes I base my decision on which opposing expert I find more persuasive. That in turn can depend on the experts’ credibility. If someone has a good track record, I’ll give their opinion a lot of weight. Everyone on both sides of this proposition knows there are excessive punishments meted out under the current law, and there will be prisoners set loose who belong behind bars if Prop. 36 passes. This is a marginal cost-benefit problem, and finding the sweet spot, if that’s possible, requires expertise I don’t have. Patrick very well may, but there are people with as much expertise whose cost-benefit analysis on the same data reaches the opposite conclusion Patrick does. On this issue I find He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, Bill Bratton, Charlie Beck and Grover Norquist more persuasive than Patrick. YMMV.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  40. I’m going to ignore those who vote based on appeals to authority and direct my arguments to those with the intellectual firepower to make up their own minds based upon the facts.

    And the facts are that 1) the proposition does not mirror the policy, and 2) nobody knows how many extra murders we have had under the policy because nobody has studied it. But the number is not zero. I know that for a fact. Lily Burk is one example. There are others.

    Incidentally, there are in my opinion too many people in prison for life with remote strikes and current offenses that are minor. Standard example: guy commits two armed robberies at age 20 by holding up two companions at gunpoint. At 44 he has a rock of cocaine. These days, he gets a break. When the law was first passed, he maybe didn’t. The people serving 25 to life in such a scenario, in my judgment, should get a chance at a less draconian sentence.

    There are ways to accomplish this. Removing all prosecutorial discretion, in my opinion, is not the best way, because more people get killed and more violent people get released. It is indeed a judgment call. Big Media will tell you about the draconian sentences. Very few will tell you about the downsides of releasing too many people. I will.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  41. By the way, Dustin, paraphrasing He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named’s comment without attributing it would have prevented me breaking a rule I didn’t know existed. That doesn’t make it more innocuous by the standards of the rest of the world which doesn’t live under such a rule.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  42. There’s no hard and fast rule against mentioning my employment. When it’s done in a threatening fashion, however, people here tend to notice and criticize it as bad taste.

    Of COURSE leo MARVIN would never have meant to intimidate! There is perhaps no person in the history of the blog who has perfected the art of opening his eyes all wide and innocent and saying “who, ME?” quite like leo marvin. Whether people buy the act is up to them.

    In any event, people who vote based on appeals to authority really aren’t worth my valuable time. I’m happy to answer any questions about this proposition from sincere people who aren’t concern trolls or phonies, however.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  43. “I’m going to ignore those who vote based on appeals to authority and direct my arguments to those with the intellectual firepower to make up their own minds based upon the facts.”

    Of course you’re implicitly appealing to authority — your own. You trot out your parade of horribles, your opponents theirs. In your opinion the overall harm will be greater if Prop 36 passes. Your opponents’ believe the opposite. There is no definitive right or wrong “based upon the facts” since, as you point out, one can only speculate the outcome if Prop. 36 passes. Essentially you’re saying “trust my opinion, not theirs,” and they’re saying the opposite. If you don’t think some of the people you convince will be because they gave your opinion more benefit of the doubt than He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, et al’s, you’re kidding yourself.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  44. I’m giving facts, not opinions.

    Fact: the person described in this post could apply for resentencing.

    Fact: some people who received less than 25 to life under lenient policies went on to commit murders.

    The fact that some annoying concern troll wants to call my facts “opinions” does not make them opinions.

    But hey, I understand your wanting to recover from your error in admitting you vote based on appeals to authority. Now it’s time to try to rebuild your credibility, and if you need to pretend facts are opinions to do so, who’s gonna notice, right?

    Patterico (8b3905)

  45. I’m concerned that leo actually believes he knows what he is talking about.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. I’m concerned that daleyrocks is concerned. Really, sincerely concerned.

    SPQR (768505)

  47. Honestly, part of me is OK if the voters really understand this proposition and want to support it. More people will be murdered, to be sure, but at the same time, some draconian sentences will be reduced. The balance is indeed a judgment call, and you can always prevent more murders with more draconian sentences, so it’s ALWAYS a judgment call.

    What irritates me is that supporters act like it’s not a tradeoff. They pretend that we can reduce the draconian sentences and nobody will be murdered as a result. Nobody will be raped as a result. Nobody will be robbed as a result.

    Well, that’s wrong. People will be raped, murdered, and robbed when these criminals get out. I just want people to confront that fact and then make up their own minds.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  48. SPQR – I appreciate your concern. I really do.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  49. “Fact: the person described in this post could apply for resentencing.

    Fact: some people who received less than 25 to life under lenient policies went on to commit murders.

    Do Cooley, Bratton, Norquist, or Beck dispute those facts? Not that I’m aware of.

    “The fact that some annoying concern troll wants to call my facts “opinions” does not make them opinions.”

    The disagreement is over the tradeoffs, and that’s a disagreement over opinions, not facts. And what is it with you and the childish name calling?

    By the way, I responded to your accusations of concern trolling, but I’m guessing your spam filter ate it, maybe because it contained links. I’d like to think you wouldn’t be so cowardly as to delete it intentionally.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  50. The spam filter did eat it. I’d retrieve it, but I think you’re not worth my time to do it. People who have seen your posts here before know who you are and what you are.

    Your initial (thuggish) comment here was to assert that Cooley claims “Proposition 36 mirrors a policy his office has followed since he was elected in 2000.” I told you it doesn’t. That’s just a fact. His policy provides discretion for prosecutors to seek 25 to life in cases where the current crime is not serious or violent. Prop. 36 does not. Facts.

    Your response would be to appeal to Cooley’s authority as to what his policy says because it’s his policy. My response is to point to FACTS that show it doesn’t. So if your characterization of what Cooley said is accurate, he’s factually wrong.

    Whether he’s my boss or not.

    You speech-squelching thug.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  51. The next comment by leo marvin to appear here will contain the name and address of his employer, so we can innocently bring it up whenever we want to innocently point out that his opinions might differ from those of his boss.

    The next comments by leo marvin NOT to appear here will be concern trollish comments.

    See if you can guess which will happen first.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  52. Of course you’re implicitly appealing to authority — your own.

    You’re projecting, Leo. His argument is that this policy has consequences that are undesirable. There is no appeal to authority there. It’s mostly a utility argument.

    That doesn’t make it more innocuous by the standards of the rest of the world which doesn’t live under such a rule.

    Dramatic concern trolls don’t speak for ‘the rest of the world’. Discussing policy on the merits and leaving out the personal stuff is more pleasant and reasonable. We’re here to discuss Prop 36. We are not here to discuss Patterico or his colleagues.

    If there’s an argument you agree with, you should be able to express it in your own words and back it up with premises.

    finding the sweet spot, if that’s possible, requires expertise I don’t have. Patrick very well may, but there are people with as much expertise whose cost-benefit analysis on the same data reaches the opposite conclusion Patrick does. On this issue I find He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, Bill Bratton, Charlie Beck and Grover Norquist more persuasive than Patrick. YMMV.

    THAT’S your argument?!?

    Just pulling rank among experts? And by experts you mean politicians in LA, for God’s sake. You expect me to believe you’ve just given yourself over in loyalty to a politician? And you find a paraphrase in a small section of a news article more persuasive than a fully fleshed out argument. Wow.

    This is an interesting controversy, and you can’t summon your own opinion? So you basically don’t care. …yet you so emotional about the issue you’re mentioning who Patrick’s DA is six times per comment? This is poor concern trolling.

    Dustin, if someone disclosed Patrick’s name and employment information without Patrick’s permission, that’s despicable.

    You say you realize under some situations your behavior would be despicable; you refuse to drop it. Your unpleasantness is intentional.

    Now you attempt to draw attention by calling him ‘he who shall not be named’ over and over and over. Very dramatic.

    ———–

    This reminds me of another weirdo on the internet. He found out the name of my dog by creeping over my Amazon reviews (I named the dog in a wish list to explain which of my dogs a toy was intended for). At first glance, I found this creepy as hell, but I wasn’t going to let it ruin my day or anything.

    I guess they (there are a few of these people apparently on some kind of team) realized I wasn’t that upset, because they crudely attempted to make their behavior more upsetting by repetition. They even created a twitter account sockpuppeting as my dog.

    While there was an attempt to justify talking about my dog (they claimed it was a secret code showing I’m a blue dog democrat… no really), you could tell they were only actually interested in drawing a negative reaction.

    Leo is barely interested in the policy of Prop 36 one way or the other, but he is very interested in the negative reaction his comments are getting. That’s what he’s here to discuss.

    Dustin (73fead)

  53. What irritates me is that supporters act like it’s not a tradeoff. They pretend that we can reduce the draconian sentences and nobody will be murdered as a result. Nobody will be raped as a result. Nobody will be robbed as a result.

    I liked this point, and I wished I hadn’t been so busy feeding a troll that it may have gotten lost in the discussion, so I wanted to quote it.

    It really shouldn’t be necessary for either side of the spectrum to approach policy arguments like that, but both sides do it. I see budget hawks mush around the fact that government programs need to be cut. Our society is all about instant gratification, and I worry that sober honesty stands no chance.

    Dustin (73fead)

  54. Leo = asshat

    peedoffamerican (2bcddb)

  55. There are worse things than being smeared on the Internet, but if you’re going to baselessly call someone a “speech-squelching thug,” you ought to at least have the decency to post his comments. Also, continuing to insult a commenter you won’t allow to respond is cowardly. Making snarky proclamations about what he will or won’t say next, when you won’t let him say anything at all, is pathetic. You ought to be embarrassed. And no, it’s not an excuse that your spam filter did the work, if indeed you didn’t block my account. You knew at least one of my comments was being held back — in fact it was more — while you continued attacking me. At that point, not spending the few seconds of your precious time to release my comments is the same as quarantining them intentionally.

    This is the first and last comment I’ll post from this IP address, and don’t worry, I won’t intrude on your fiefdom again from my usual one. You can consider me constructively banned. So congratulations. You’ve driven away another evil liberal with your tribal antagonism. Just be sure to keep telling yourself you aren’t an echo chamber.

    leo marvin II (b2ba56)

  56. Babysteps leo

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  57. Goodbye and good riddance, you dishonest little blank!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  58. Remember when he swore he wasn’t a liberal?!

    JD (436368)

  59. Um, I don’t see the alleged intimidation in leo marvin’s original comment. Nobody can possibly imagine that Mr Cooley expects all his ADAs to agree with him on this question, or that he’s unaware that many of them don’t, let alone that he would dream of retaliating against them for it. But the fact that Mr Cooley is Patterico’s boss is obviously relevant, since it means that he is surely aware of the same fact on which Patterico relies for his opinion, and has reached the opposite conclusion.

    It’s nonsense for Patterico to claim he isn’t relying on his own authority in this matter. He obviously is, which is why he expects his opinion to be more persuasive than that of the average blogger or journalist; so it’s relevant that someone with at least as much expertise disagrees. That disagreement it a matter of opinion rather than facts, as Patterico would have it be. Both experts are aware of the same facts, both acknowledge that it’s a tradeoff, and their difference is in their opinions on whether the tradeoff is worth it.

    Speaking of which, if Patterico’s only point is that it is a tradeoff, and his only beef is with those who seem to imagine it isn’t, then what’s his beef with leo marvin, who takes it for granted that of course it’s a tradeoff?

    It seems to me that you’re all ganging up on him when his comment was on point and innocuous.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  60. It’s nonsense for Patterico to claim he isn’t relying on his own authority in this matter.

    No, it’s completely accurate to note that Pat brought forward an argument based on what the real world effects will be. He did not say “Because I am a prosecutor I am right”.

    Nobody can possibly imagine that Mr Cooley expects all his ADAs to agree with him on this question

    That’s not the issue.

    if Patterico’s only point is that it is a tradeoff, and his only beef is with those who seem to imagine it isn’t, then what’s his beef with leo marvin

    a) You are not accurately stating Pat’s view. He thinks this proposition should fail, and disagrees with those who want it to succeed. He further has a problem with those who pretend it isn’t a tradeoff.

    b) That’s a two way street anyway. What’s Leo’s problem with Pat if they both agree it’s a tradeoff? Why did Leo feel the need to refer to Patterico’s DA repeatedly? When Patterico responded to him on the merits of the argument, he was ignored while Leo referred to the DA dozens of times.

    It seems to me that you’re all ganging up on him when his comment was on point and innocuous.

    His point could have been made without referring to specific people who who they work with repeatedly. After asked to keep it on the merits of the argument, he got obnoxious and referred to the same guy in a more dramatic fashion, instead of showing us he wants to have a debate on the merits. I gave Leo the benefit of the doubt and invited him to show us he wants to have a discussion on the merits, without referring to specific details about specific people, but instead arguments for or against policy. Leo pointedly refused, so I think his comment behavior is weird.

    Appeals to authority are irrational, Milhouse. It’s disappointing you are unable to recognize when they are made and when they aren’t.

    Dustin (73fead)

  61. He obviously is, which is why he expects his opinion to be more persuasive than that of the average blogger or journalist; so it’s relevant that someone with at least as much expertise disagrees

    The only way this is accurate is that Patterico has explained factually how policy operates.

    You have twisted that into Pat saying his opinion is better than ‘average bloggers’. Why?

    It’s Leo Marvin who expressly claims appeals to authority, simply saying senior bureaucrats and politicians are the most right in their opinions. This is a lot different from Patterico laying out facts he is more familiar with than you or I and then making an argument on that basis.

    Dustin (73fead)

  62. It’s nonsense for Patterico to claim he isn’t relying on his own authority in this matter.

    No, it’s completely accurate to note that Pat brought forward an argument based on what the real world effects will be. He did not say “Because I am a prosecutor I am right”.

    He didn’t have to say it. When someone comments on a matter in which he has unique knowledge and experience, it should be taken as read that he’s relying on that and the authority it gives him.

    What’s Leo’s problem with Pat if they both agree it’s a tradeoff? Why did Leo feel the need to refer to Patterico’s DA repeatedly?

    Because his entire point is that Patterico seems to be saying that the pro-36 position relies on ignorance of facts, and that anyone aware of the facts will oppose it; and that isn’t true. At least some prominent supporters, such as Cooley, Norquist, etc., are perfectly aware of the facts and that it’s a tradeoff, but think the tradeoff is worth it. That makes Patterico’s claim that it isn’t worth it an opinion, just like theirs.

    His point could have been made without referring to specific people who who they work with repeatedly.

    No, it couldn’t. Cooley’s position as Patterico’s boss is relevant. And what’s with this “repeatedly”? He made one and only one reference to it, in his very first comment, upon which he was immediately attacked and accused of intimidation. He spent the rest of the thread defending himself from what seems to me a very unfair attack.

    Appeals to authority are irrational, Milhouse.

    That’s nonsense. On any issue that depends on facts, non-experts have no choice but to rely on experts. If every scientist who had looked at the facts agreed with global warming, would any of us dream of insisting they were all wrong and our uninformed intuition was right?! It’s only the existence of experts, who are qualified to assess the facts, and who have explained why the theory is wrong, and have marshaled fact-bound arguments against it, that justifies non-experts in also rejecting it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  63. He didn’t have to say it.

    Nor did he.

    I’m not interested in a pedantic conversation when we’re talking about common sense and common courtesy.

    Leaving people’s IRL details out of policy discussions on the internet is just basic social grace. I realize some folks I discuss matters with online have problems with this area of their lives, and I just want to assert this point, because if you don’t get it… you won’t get it.

    Dustin (73fead)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3081 secs.