J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Yep spot on assessment!
- Status
S
Steeevyo
Guest
As a reform model it can’t work The NYPD employs 55,000. Camden has a population of 77,000.
O
otjm
Guest
Simply making it a bald statement is not evidence.
I don’t recall saying that Camden is the perfect model to follow. What I do say is that they have made an intelligent and well-founded approach based on several issues.
One of the primary issues does not appear in the national monologue of “defunding the police”. I don’t know of any peer reviewed study which shows that having fewer police on the streets reduces crime, but there are multiple peer reviewed studies which show that having more police on the street does reduce crime.
The mantra of “defund the police” without anything more is simply insanity at its finest. It sounds slick to people who have a utopianist view of human nature, to people who have no experience with criminals and the legal processes dealing with them, and if we could get off the irrational soundbites of closing prisons and speak rationally, we might get somewhere.
My recollection is that New York City released a bunch of people from jail, and then the powers that be were astounded that crime almost immediately went up. “But we gave them the privilege of release? How dare they” was the effective response.
New York is in general a progressive city, and one of the core, key elements of making changes to police procedures and training (as noted in the Camden study) is breaking the union; the second is reducing pay and benefits in order to afford more police on the streets.
And that has its own problems as Camden has shown, police start in Camden, and with a bit of time under the belts, move on to better pay and benefit jobs.
When you change one aspect, there are unintended consequences.
As the article pointed out, Camden is better than 90% two minority groups. They feel they have an inordinate number of white officers even now; but that is a matter of both civil service laws statewide and possibly violates civil rights laws nationwide.
We also have narratives which fail to state all of the facts, part of that being the “why” of the number of minorities shot and wounded or killed during an arrest. The “why” is what triggered the shooting - which altogether too often is that the minority had a weapon and either would not drop it, or used it.
You cannot have a conversation about effects honestly without also discussing causes.
I am all for better policing. Reducing the police force is not going to accomplish that.
And not changing police procedures - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one of the signs of insanity.
IMPO one of the biggest sticking points to changing policing is police unions. Camden got it; whether Democratic led cities with Democratic majorities have the intestinal fortitude and honesty to deal with that issue is another question.
(continued)
I don’t recall saying that Camden is the perfect model to follow. What I do say is that they have made an intelligent and well-founded approach based on several issues.
One of the primary issues does not appear in the national monologue of “defunding the police”. I don’t know of any peer reviewed study which shows that having fewer police on the streets reduces crime, but there are multiple peer reviewed studies which show that having more police on the street does reduce crime.
The mantra of “defund the police” without anything more is simply insanity at its finest. It sounds slick to people who have a utopianist view of human nature, to people who have no experience with criminals and the legal processes dealing with them, and if we could get off the irrational soundbites of closing prisons and speak rationally, we might get somewhere.
My recollection is that New York City released a bunch of people from jail, and then the powers that be were astounded that crime almost immediately went up. “But we gave them the privilege of release? How dare they” was the effective response.
New York is in general a progressive city, and one of the core, key elements of making changes to police procedures and training (as noted in the Camden study) is breaking the union; the second is reducing pay and benefits in order to afford more police on the streets.
And that has its own problems as Camden has shown, police start in Camden, and with a bit of time under the belts, move on to better pay and benefit jobs.
When you change one aspect, there are unintended consequences.
As the article pointed out, Camden is better than 90% two minority groups. They feel they have an inordinate number of white officers even now; but that is a matter of both civil service laws statewide and possibly violates civil rights laws nationwide.
We also have narratives which fail to state all of the facts, part of that being the “why” of the number of minorities shot and wounded or killed during an arrest. The “why” is what triggered the shooting - which altogether too often is that the minority had a weapon and either would not drop it, or used it.
You cannot have a conversation about effects honestly without also discussing causes.
I am all for better policing. Reducing the police force is not going to accomplish that.
And not changing police procedures - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one of the signs of insanity.
IMPO one of the biggest sticking points to changing policing is police unions. Camden got it; whether Democratic led cities with Democratic majorities have the intestinal fortitude and honesty to deal with that issue is another question.
(continued)
O
otjm
Guest
(Continued)
I don’t care how many peaceful protesters march for how long; making changes is going to be difficult and it is going to take a tremendous amount more than people marching and shouting slogans. What I am hearing in the news, both from the liberal and the conservative press, is that we need to defund or even get rid of the police.
I may be buying stock in Caterpillar, as it appears that many jurisdictions want to dig a hole, and are likely to buy product from that company so they can dig the hole faster and deeper. Sanity and common sense have been replaced with sloganeering showing no semblance of rationality, or cause and effect.
I don’t care how many peaceful protesters march for how long; making changes is going to be difficult and it is going to take a tremendous amount more than people marching and shouting slogans. What I am hearing in the news, both from the liberal and the conservative press, is that we need to defund or even get rid of the police.
I may be buying stock in Caterpillar, as it appears that many jurisdictions want to dig a hole, and are likely to buy product from that company so they can dig the hole faster and deeper. Sanity and common sense have been replaced with sloganeering showing no semblance of rationality, or cause and effect.
W
WingedHussar
Guest
You forgot a 4th option, separation.
People started getting fired for past and present political positions. People are losing their businesses. People are getting assaulted in public for supporting the president. A kid cannot even smile in front of an Indian beating a drum mere inches from his face without slander and death threats. Not much room to compromise there. Did you voice disapproval of those events? If not, you contributed to the problem.
We will what we gotta do to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
People started getting fired for past and present political positions. People are losing their businesses. People are getting assaulted in public for supporting the president. A kid cannot even smile in front of an Indian beating a drum mere inches from his face without slander and death threats. Not much room to compromise there. Did you voice disapproval of those events? If not, you contributed to the problem.
We will what we gotta do to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Last edited:
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
They should have never started to begin with. There is nothing, NOTHING that can justify them.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Are the protesters interested in a solution? In your opinion?
Have any of them actually asked to have a meeting with any authorities? Have they proposed a plan or a solution? Have they address congress?
If I were seeking a solution to a problem, I could:
a. stand in the street and shout (for 2 months)
b. try to identify a place where my problem could be solved and go there
You choose.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
I guess the protesters highlighted the problem. It is now up to our elected representatives to respond.
They are expressing their dissatisfaction with life. In the case of Portland, the elected representatives are doing nothing. Some are joining the protesters. This is deriliction of duty.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
You contradict yourself.
I stand corrected. The elected representatives’ reply to the protestors is to join the protest. If their job is to seek solutions, they seem to be contributing to the problem.Adamek:
You contradict yourself.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Maybe the problem is that not enough people support the protests.
Allow me to share a little bit of personal experience. I happened to find myself in the middle of what was called the Arab Spring. Popular uprising all over the Middle East against dictatorships and police brutality. Millions joined in. The protests laster for weeks. Public squares were occupied. Police stations set on fire, etc. What we have today is nothing in comparison.
What struck me that there were no leaders. It was as if these riots werer spontaneous.
Well. What happened that the governments were toppled. Dictators arrested, some killed. But suddenly all those young protesters who wanted to vent their anger found themselved under the thumb of the unseen but real instigators. The various islamist groups that have been struggling for power for a long time and found the riots a perfect opportunity to grab that power. And they did. We know the rest. Syria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan. All upside down. Bloodshed and destruction.
Those kids rioting in Portland for two months have nothing better to do. Many of them live in the streets anyway. But, they are being guided and manipulated. And the real culrpits will soon emerge.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Must you? I witnessed rioting two blocks from my home.
Were you around for the student protests in the sixties? Please see the thread on “What begat Trump”. It is eye-opening about the right-wing backlash.
Last edited:
Yup. And a lot more. You know this stuff from books only.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Hah! I was involved in the student protests.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
That’s a bit condescending.
Last edited:
Just a bit.
A
Annie
Guest
So… the elected officials’ joining the protests is “doing something”?
But what could the elected officials possibly be protesting? They are the ones who need to be listening to the peaceful protesters and doing something about the problem.
So the elected officials are joining the protesters, an utterly pointless act of virtue signaling.
- Status