The best
Law books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Law books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Law books:
According to the dictators handbook: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845
You should always pay your military.
Edit: if you are like me, then you will read this book and think HTF is Trump president when he is a complete idiot to these rules? Well, sadly, it all makes sense if Trump isn't the 'real' leader here..
You can't directly help, but there are things you can do: Learn. Understand why this is happening and how to fight it. Then, teach.
The book "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (Amazon link (non-affiliate)) completely changed how I process information about these kinds of things. It talks at length about protests in dictatorships, why they happen, and why they sometimes don't happen. How governments fight them. How and why our own governments sometimes help and sometimes don't.
I really, really highly recommend it.
Folks should read and remember "3 Felonies A Day". Amazon link..
When everyone is guilty of something, selective enforcement is what lets inequality disguise itself as equality.
> people get thrown in jail for unpaid fines/fees and other minor violations in 13 states,
So is this a space where we can discuss the excellent book The New Jim Crow because it seems highly relevant.
For a deeper understanding of the War on Drugs as it pertains to the U.S. putting more of its citizens in prison than any other nation: The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.
It's not just a matter of being exposed. Three Felonies a Day is a great book about how it's almost impossible to not break the law on a daily basis.
I think you pretty much got your answer from previous commentators. It is largely symbolic but it does also mean Richmond would have to rely on State Police and not local police or sheriffs. That means, for example, you'd need VSP to witness something or someone would have to report it VSP, not the local police. You also wouldn't have courts in that county issuing warrants either. It's not that you can't enforce it, it's that it makes it difficult/annoying to do so. (Lots of laws on the books fall into this category btw. You likely commit felonies every day without realizing it.)
Honestly it's not that different from say state Marijuana legalization. The big difference here is scale, it's just one state vs the country. But for example, there's literally nothing stopping the DEA right now from going in themselves and rounding up marijuana business owners in Denver for violating federal law. DEA did it to medical marijuana dispensaries in CA for years. The reason they don't do this now is it's unpopular so politicians don't want to help fund it and burn local bridges to do it.
>Indulge me in the systemic injustices of the black community from the last 40-50 years after the civil rights movement ?
There are entire books you can read about this. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
​
And then the rest of your post is just taking your incorrect premise and running with it.
Great book on this called "On Killing - the Psychological Costs of Learning to Kill in War and Society
​
It explores killing in war through history and the effects, largely linked to proximity of the kill, had detrimental effects on the killer.
Some notable facts about the book that I can remember after reading it 10 years ago:
Knife/Bayonett kills, though exceptionally rare in more recent wars, had the most devastating effects. Soldiers cited as feeling a man's last breath had a big hurdle to climb.
American soldiers in WWII were exceptionally bad shots, especially when shooting Germans. Turns out most Americans didn't want to kill people, even during the heroic march to victory. All-time terrible percentage of shooting.
War attracts psychopaths and make up something like 5% of combatants who are out to kill and not the norm.
​
If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend the book. Things I read have stayed with me and it never surprises me how much this topic comes up in conversation.
It would be naive to assume he's actually killing drug dealers. I recommend The Dictator's Handbook before making any assumptions about why a dictator is allowing violence against a group.
https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845
For example, let's say an earthquake hits your country and affects 100,000 people on the verge of starvation. Let's say 50,000 support you and 50,000 don't. Guess who isn't getting a single dollar of relief regardless of how much money streams in from Western charities.
The Color of Law is a great book that covers all the strategies used to keep neighborhoods segregated after discriminating based on race was no longer legal, including how HOAs were used.
i didn't know this until i read The Color of Law, but back in the early 20th century the popularity of personal automobiles skyrocketed to such a size that cities simply weren't able to keep up with the congestion they caused. the number of people who owned cars essentially doubled every year for a while and traffic was a plague. it's one of the reasons why cities embraced the idea of widening roads and eventually building highways so much in the first place, even back then they thought doing so would solve congestion
He wrote a follow up book on this subject that basically says you can’t just not talk to police. You have to request a lawyer and only talk to police once your lawyer is present. If I remember correctly in the book he explains there have been some rulings that let them consider complete silence as admission of guilt. Been a while since I read it though so I’m sure I’m missing the nuance.
Edited to add the book https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/ref=nodl_
I absolutely respect your position.
Laws changing is a very slow process, which is why we rely on courts to constantly test their application. What happens when we know the written laws are harming people but the legislative body is slow to act? Should the justice department knowingly hurt those people for years just because of a technicality? Studies and lit have alleged that the average American commits three felonies a day. I think I would rather live in a world where the justice department used their discretion colored by their humanity and empathy for its application over robotic enforcement. After all, what is the justice department for if not to help provide an environment of health and safety for the community?
Edit: just as an afterthought there’s also the issue of budget. Trial, investigation, and storage of criminals is a very expensive business. Would you rather courts, prisons, and jails be overloaded with pot smokers or be able to quickly and efficiently process people who have actually hurt others in their crimes? Discretion is very important.
He read a book on critical race theory to see what all his conservative coworkers were freaking out over, and he found that he actually agreed with it.
More than once on this sub, I've cited the book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police. It's a bit lengthy, and covers the historical foundation of the Bill of Rights (great read if you're an American history student).
But the real takeaway is that SWAT teams bring their own exigency with them. "Exigency" is just a fancy word for urgent and unexpected circumstances that allow SWAT teams to improvise and shoot dogs and kick in doors and operate without a judge's oversight. But the book makes a compelling argument that SWAT teams create exigency, they create violence where none existed before, they create dangerous situations where none existed before.
What if there are hostages inside a bank during a botched robbery? Sure, send in SWAT. But a house where no one is in any danger? Or a house where no one is threatening anyone? Hey, what if someone is suspected of cock fighting? Just have a celebrity drive a SWAT tank into their house. WCGW?
> Colton said he didn't view it racially
Using racially charged terms and then saying, "No, I didn't mean it in a racist way," is the hallmark of racists (SEE: Donald Trump). No one self-identifies as a racist. They see their views as justified because they aren't against a particular race; they're against crime, poverty, drugs, etc. The main problem is, they overlook that behavior in the majority groups they belong to. White frat boys doing coke at a college party are just kids having fun, but black people doing crack in a poor neighborhood are violent criminals. Colton wouldn't have labeled a struggling white stand-up comedian as ghetto, so let's stop pretending like him calling Bill ghetto isn't racist.
tl;dr Colton is a racist.
EDIT: If anyone's interested in looking into this topic more, The New Jim Crow is a great book about how racism has evolved since the days of "Whites Only" water fountains and segregated schools.
If you really want to get technical, the average American commits 3 felonies a day due to some ridiculously vague laws (like CFAA, which for example is so broadly written it allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute you merely for violating the TOS on a website). But the thing is those ridiculously vague and broad laws that everyone violates on a daily basis are almost never enforced, except as a way to prosecutors extra leverage in plea bargains.
But I highly doubt that this was what the person quoted was referring to. They sounded like they were talking about serious crimes, not stuff that shouldn't even be illegal.
Trump has learned a lot from authoritarian, corrupt leaders throughout history. His playbook is literally from stuff like this https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845
I see you have read some Harvey Silver in your past.
> The U.K. has an armed ruling class and disarmed citizenry, which supports this. > > So... Like most of the world outside of the US?
I'm fairly certain that's not true. An armed citizenry raises the opportunity cost of establishing martial law, which is good for helping establish a government with more freedoms. Soldiers willing to shoot at and be shot by their neighbors cost more than soldiers who aren't willing to do that.
> Still wondering why anyone really cares where people choose to live.
Actually, where people live is one of the biggest drivers of life outcomes. If you're born in KCK instead of Leawood - your probable life outcomes is much worse.
At one time, segregation was official city/state/fed policy, which subsidized the development of all-white suburbs (like Prairie Village was one of the first) and movement of people from urban areas to the suburbs - aka 'white flight'. Today, we're still living with white flight. If there were a middle to upper income suburb of Kansas City that were 88% black, do you think many white people would choose to move there? Me neither.
Check out Richard Rothstein's book "The Color of Law", or his lectures on YouTube. Great history and info about the relationship between housing segregation and life outcomes in the US.
As the Vox illustrates, segregation is still going on today (it's actually getting worse) due to policies like zoning laws and drive to prevent low-income housing and apartment complexes from being improved in middle-upper income cities, resulting in low income minorities living in a small number of areas in the metro (as illustrated by the original Vox piece map).
There is a seedy underbelly within the federal prison system and this is one of the major issues. For starters I highly encourage people to read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander (Amazon)
States and private state contractors rake in loads of money on prison labor, often at the expense of normal citizens who would both work these jobs, and contribute financially from their income.
[edit: careful, if you don't pay attention and type posts they'll come out retarded, like mine was - fixed]
> Are you arguing that because previous presidents have committed ethical violations and gotten away with it that we as a society should condone unethical behavior?
Selective prosecution is generally considered wrong, so all presidents should be held to the same standard. It would be very wrong to impeach a president for actions that were completely normal for most people, but which were technically criminal. People supposedly commit 3 felonies a day. It would be wrong to impeach a President for these kinds of crimes.
sometimes I wonder, its literally physically embedded in our society. if you have heard of "red lining", basically on the basis of discriminatory law and practice, colored folks sequestered into poor housing. There is a book about it apparently too, the Law of Color:
https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853
(read the first review there, its just nuts how jacked up an affect it all has)
on top of this, struggling to even go to a college because of one's skin color, and all the other historical challenges. How will we change embedded physical geographical areas built upon oppression and prejudice? I have no idea.
There is a short clip on youtube about it basically:
> The effect of which turns every person in the United States into a criminal.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Other readers: read Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
I don't understand why it's one or the other, can't schools AND prisons have AC? Most people don't decide to become criminals, most of the time it's out of necessity. I'd be willing to bet you've commited a few felonies in your lifetime just due to how obscure the law in the USA is.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
'Only' is a bit strong, but there were numerous programs which encouraged the development of suburban, single family homes - specifically for whites. The Color of Law offers a thorough, policy based exploration of the racialization and segregation of housing in the US, and also deals with those policies which tended to encourage home ownership and low density zoning.
> and I'd be shocked if there's a US Attorney out there who's willingly going to go "yeah, you know what? I'm going to push for a weed conviction rather than going after heroin / coke / opiods / meth."
You're confusing the symptoms with the problem. The driving force behind the drug war isn't attorneys or even really politicians specifically, it's law enforcement agencies going after that sweet, sweet grant money. And MJ busts are quick, easy ways to make a buck. It has virtually zero impact on the actual crime rate but it looks good on paper. Radly Balko's book "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" is a really good breakdown on this subject.
Attorney's, politicians, and even the president himself can talk all the talk they want, the reality is until someone cuts the purse strings, this problem doesn't go away. And I have yet to hear even hint at limiting these grant programs.