- Aug 2, 2006
- 34,182
- 29,509
I love it...now it devolves into posting pictures and memes.
Obviously the best kind of evidence.
Obviously the best kind of evidence.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
policy prescriptions
almost like the military and police
have the same goals
in different locations
Yes, there are countless cities/counties in this country (for a variety of reasons) that are over funded AND overstaffed. In short, cutting officers would be a net benefit to the county.Again I repeat; the vast majority of spending comes from payroll and pensions.
and significant reduction in police budgets would necessitate cutting officers and cutting hours.
Im can agree they should reassess where the funds are going, and they should end the purchasing of military grade equipment,
but ultimately real cuts would require cutting officers and hours, and unless you think police serve literally zero crime reducing function, then that would likely result in an increase in crime and less crime solved.
I love it...now it devolves into posting pictures and memes.
Obviously the best kind of evidence.
************* look like commandos. We got a dummy saying "gIvE dEm mOReZ mOnIEs" claiming it will fix policing. NYC police are probably some of the best paid police in the nation, yet they are still murdering people by asphyxiation for selling loosies and performing home invasions to commit murder because "You look like a suspect in a case" aka walking while black. But sure, giving them more money will fix this.
policy prescriptions
almost like the military and police
have the same goals
in different locations
yah sure this is what I said.
if you need to make up strawmen to argue against, i probabaly says something about your own position.
Self awareness: not even once.Like I said. yall got it. defund the police yada yada or whatever.
I hope one day you get what you want, get rid of couple of humvees and then pay for medicare for all. or whatever yall think will happen.
In 2012, Camden was the most dangerous city in the United States with over 170 open-air drug markets in just nine-square miles.
"Unfortunately, the systems that are designed to prevent corruption and protect the public eroded and allowed rogue officers to operate unabated for years," the statement continued.
As crime escalated in the city, the town wanted to add more officers to the streets, but the average unionized officer cost the city $182,168, on average, with benefits. So the city disbanded the police department and created a new a county community force instead.
The city fired its entire police force, rehiring 100 officers at an average cost of $99,605 per officer.
This massive windfall allowed the city to reallocate funds to other community-building initiatives. The local economy received a boost from new educational and workplace programs and the city's blighted and abandoned properties were demolished.
The new community-oriented police force now focused on the de-escalation of violence instead of sending officers out with an us-against-them, warrior-like mentality. This approach to policing would have prevented the death of George Floyd.
Overall, this new approach to community building and policing has had a tremendously positive impact on the city. Data shows that over the past seven years, violent crimes have dropped 42% in the city, and the crime rate has dropped from 79 per 1,000 to 44 per 1,000.
Also, do you agree there IS a breakeven point? In other words, do you believe there is such a thing as too many police officers? Additionally, what is your argument for increased funding? What history can any department provide for properly allocating their funds for enhanced programs that required more dollars. Cultural changes take time not money.....
America's 'most dangerous city' defunded its police department 7 years ago. It's been a stunning success.
What happens when the police get "defunded."www.upworthy.com
What an untenable position. Obviously because we have done something one way for decades with very little positive evidence to show for it, we should keep doing it. Just keep sending those police departments a blank check so they can keep hiring more officers, or in most cases, pay more in overtime to existing officers which produce little incremental improvements at a cost that rises exponentially.
"If we have more police we have less crime" ~ man says while ignoring the fact that police department sizes have increased over the last decade with a 100% increase in funding to said departments, but crime has not decreased.
No, you are whining. Very much so.Im not winning im making a point.
Man people have accepted defund the police with astonishingly little scrutiny and have decided to focus their ire on me.
fine if you want to, i have no problem rebutting shoddy claims.
Amazingmy bad sorry I look for data to support my claims.
im very sorry for this.
I sincerely apologize.
No, you are whining. Very much so.
Famb you came in here loud, proud, and flippant because some white people at work pissed you off in Canada, to rant to the NT Political Thread (which happens to be filled with a lot black people in the US).
It has been damn near a month we have been on this. Now after a month, you are complaining why aren't people in here scrutinizing the folk you have such a massive unnecessary hang-up about, at the same level they are scrutinizing the dude that felt it necessary to run in the online discussion thread they are reading, to play internet ******* at the first chance he saw the opportunity. Really, that your beef now?
Everything you have accused others of, you have done: the straw-manning, the magical thinking, the constantly restating your argument in a more focused and sanitary manner as a way to avoid people calling you out. For the past few weeks, you have basically been a Nigerian Sam Harris in here. Hell, you have seemingly kept this argument going for extra weeks because you transitioned one complaint you couldn't back up with evidence to another you thought you could. The only problem is that your argument has holes in it too, and it relies on continuous straw-manning the other side.
As someone that has done social science research, still reads a ton of it now, still works on econometric models, at this point in time, beyond the slogan I think the arguments most of the people using adopted the defund the police slogan have their merits. It is not some robust policy prescription to solve all of policing. But the policy goal they are really trying to achieve and the means they could achieve it seems logical. The reason there are not all these studies back up their ideas is that they have not been implemented on a large enough scale, and studied over an extended period of time. When you point out other interventions that have helped, it really doesn't undercut their argument. Yes, there are interventions that cost money that could lower misconduct, but those interventions have had a longer observation period. Secondly, it is important to repeat, the only reason the "defund' part in Defund the Police is because municipal, state, and the federal government have failed to protect other social services from deep cuts. Services that could lower citizens' interactions with the police, and possibly help lower crime with the downstream effects. All while police budgets have grown, and grown.
I have not gotten to the part where this added pressure has been leveraged to force a discussion on what exactly is in those police budgets.
You want to label me as intellectually lazy for my position of being sympathetic to those people, go ****ing ahead.
Even then, most people interested in improving police, in all areas, are not hung up slogans or married to only one group of policy interventions. You are ranting about a slogan and a set of ideas that are more represented in online spaces, than they are in the city government town halls. Yet, we are the ones in an echo chamber? That's rich.
Dude, that is some Delk level ****. With some Ninjahood level of lack of self-awareness sprinkled on top.
-BTW, the reason I brought up you having to realize that dudes in here have been victims of police harassment (and are still targets) is not to make you agree with any position, especially one you don't agree with. It was for you to stop, think, and read the room. So before you type **** like accusing people opinion of being the way it is because NT leans young and educated (which really came off as you trying to conflate the motivations of dudes in here with white progressive that piss you off) or an echo chamber, then stand back in amazement when the blowback comes.
Amazing
This whole thing started because you literally didn't do this.
Could you cite me the social science research that said the use of the defund the police slogan by some activist cost the Dems the election?yah hard disagree.
but there is not point going on with this.
Could you cite me the social science research that said the use of the defund the police slogan by some activist cost the Dems the election?
Because trying to push that claim is how this whole **** kicked off with you.
Baltimore is like the 20th largest city in the country but top 5 in Police per capita...All these cops in the city resulted in 300+ murders a year (like only 15% solved in a good year), and a known rep as one of the most grimiest departments in the nation...More funding n boys on the street don’t seem to be fixing crime issues there...Most of the high crime places in the USA already have big budgets n lots of police around, but that’s probly not one of the stats that yo looked up for his argumentsMother****ers look like commandos. We got a dummy saying "gIvE dEm mOReZ mOnIEs" claiming it will fix policing. NYC police are probably some of the best paid police in the nation, yet they are still murdering people by asphyxiation for selling loosies and performing home invasions to commit murder because "You look like a suspect in a case" aka walking while black. But sure, giving them more money will fix this.
so ill leave it at that.
You didn't have the evidence that backed up your point because the polling data you had was before the electionyah I don't agree, that opinion was based polling data, and the results of the election. You don't need to agree with conclusions I drew. you can say maybe I was overreading the data we have. but I don't agree that it was some claim i made devoid of evidence.