Strangulation and aggravated assault do not, according to some, constitute crimes enough to keep someone locked up for the safety of those they have pledged to kill
"I think her tolerance for the violence of others is informed by a sense of duty to people who’ve historically been given an unfair deal and in some cases continue to be."
This is probably an accurate take. But the person has mischaracterized your argument, is not arguing in good faith. It's annoying because the person appears to be interacting rationally but they're not, they're ignoring the big picture.
Schmokeweeed420 (and others actors in this tale apparently) is committing the logical fallacy of applying the statistical properties of a group to an individual in it. Accept for argument's sake the statistical trends that Schmokeweeed420 and others appear to be citing, namely that if you are poor, etc., you are more likely to be sent to jail. Mohammed Adan was poor. Ok. That may lead the judge and the private Portland bail fund, knowing statistically being poor Adan may be getting a raw deal, to look into his case more closely. But still Adan and Michelle Abraham are individuals. Their case should be evaluated irrespective of their social or economic class since the law does not and should not distinguish. Take the case on face value and it is clear that since Adan continued to make threats against Abraham, he should have been kept in jail. One could argue that the source of the statistical wrong is that bail is not set based upon the wealth of the person, in spite of one of its purposes being to prevent flight, but that is only one element to consider. And in this case, it is clear that the threats by Adan overrides that consideration.
I know for a fact that Schmokeweeed420 is a invaluable asset when it comes to finding Cool Ranch Doritos at 3 am, or navigating the complexities of ones buzz being "harshed" by "the man", great recommendations on hobo shower locations, and their searing commentary on whether or not a taco is a sandwich was truly riveting. However, I have always found their lack of foresight and nuance when it comes to public policy a bit wanting. I guess no one is perfect.
"I think her tolerance for the violence of others is informed by a sense of duty to people who’ve historically been given an unfair deal and in some cases continue to be."
This is probably an accurate take. But the person has mischaracterized your argument, is not arguing in good faith. It's annoying because the person appears to be interacting rationally but they're not, they're ignoring the big picture.
Schmokeweeed420 (and others actors in this tale apparently) is committing the logical fallacy of applying the statistical properties of a group to an individual in it. Accept for argument's sake the statistical trends that Schmokeweeed420 and others appear to be citing, namely that if you are poor, etc., you are more likely to be sent to jail. Mohammed Adan was poor. Ok. That may lead the judge and the private Portland bail fund, knowing statistically being poor Adan may be getting a raw deal, to look into his case more closely. But still Adan and Michelle Abraham are individuals. Their case should be evaluated irrespective of their social or economic class since the law does not and should not distinguish. Take the case on face value and it is clear that since Adan continued to make threats against Abraham, he should have been kept in jail. One could argue that the source of the statistical wrong is that bail is not set based upon the wealth of the person, in spite of one of its purposes being to prevent flight, but that is only one element to consider. And in this case, it is clear that the threats by Adan overrides that consideration.
I know for a fact that Schmokeweeed420 is a invaluable asset when it comes to finding Cool Ranch Doritos at 3 am, or navigating the complexities of ones buzz being "harshed" by "the man", great recommendations on hobo shower locations, and their searing commentary on whether or not a taco is a sandwich was truly riveting. However, I have always found their lack of foresight and nuance when it comes to public policy a bit wanting. I guess no one is perfect.
If people believe irrational things, arguing with them rationally is a waste of time
The best response to bad-faith, thought-ending rhetoric, e.g, "Should poor people be imprisoned?" is to call it what it is and move on.