Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Disproportionate to the given demographics’ share of the overall population.What do you mean by "the way they're deployed disproportionately?" What is "disproportionate" in this context? Disproportionate by race in terms of the officer-to-citizen? Disproportionate to the crime rate? Do you mean that they have more patrols through areas with less crime than those with more crime...because if they have more patrols through areas with more crime, that would not be disproportionate.
Back in the 80s, one real case of police systemic racism was discovered in Omaha NE (a city with a significant racist history). The police department typically assigned its rookies and "problem" officers to the black North Side, while the favored officers were assigned to the wealthy white West Side. But that was 40 years ago.
In nearly 70 years of being black, I've had five "business" interactions with police. My first, at age 15 1/2, was driving without a license and getting in a fenderbender. The white Oklahoma police officer looked closely at me, decided I wasn't a real troublemaker, took me back home, and left me in the custody of my mother...no further action. The only officers I ever felt disrespected me were two black Washington DC officers, who cuffed and stuffed me on a humbug...and I had been the person who called 911 for their help.
One thing I believe has helped me is something my Army father instructed me about getting along in the military: "If you ever find yourself in trouble...Shut up! Running your mouth is only going to make them determined to find some reason to hammer you. Just shut the <bleep> up."
Dialing 911 is like opening a box of chocolates.
I’d strongly advise against signing several years of your life away for 3 hots and a cot.Right now might be the best time to join, at least as far as the possibility of combat is concerned. But I'd strongly advise joining the Air Force or the Space Force. The superiority in the quality of life over the other services is dramatic.
Disproportionate to the given demographics’ share of the overall population.
Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics. The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests. Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data. Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.But what is the difference in the crime rates of those areas? It would be silly to deploy police according to the size of the population. The reasonable method would be to deploy according to the crime rate. Areas with higher crime rates should have more patrols.
I can see the parallel of them both being nations of conquerors which has gone on since the first person built a fence and got people to help defend it.
What I don't identify with is someone dictating to others what their life experience is
and denying that a conquered people are not affected by that down the generations just as the conquerers are affected.
Right, but there is still a lingering effect. We now have more avenues to justice but I wouldn't say the race problem has been cured. Our country is still treating the problem with the civil rights laws being the medicine so to speak. There are still a lot of outdated notions about race but the longer time goes on, the better it gets.
We must remember history or be doomed to repeat it (the saying goes something like that).
That is true I just think some people because of what they were exposed to and endured as a child, have no hope for their future.
It's already don. There is no changing it now. I was just stating a hypothetical on how the Europeans could have immigrated non-violently.
Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics. The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests. Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data. Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.
I’ve seen it happen on numerous occasions. George Floyd’s death, they claim racism. Least amount of black doctors in America, they claim racism. Least amount of wealthy people in America, they claim racism. Lowest percentage of homeowners, they claim racism. Highest percentage of prison population, they claim racism. Highest percentage of people in poverty, they claim racism. Highest percentage of people on welfare, they claim racism. And they completely ignore the fact that the fact is, unfortunately blacks have the highest percentage of unemployment and the lowest percentage of college graduates. So naturally these are going to contribute to most of these problems listed above. And yeah I get it, college isn’t cheap, but the military doesn’t cost a dime to join and they’ll pay for college. That’s what my daughter’s plan is to go to college because we can’t afford it either but we’re not going to make excuses that she couldn’t succeed in life because she’s Filipino and being discriminated against. I’ve taught my kids that they can accomplish anything they want in life if they work hard and apply their self. Sure they’ll face obstacles just like everyone else but you have to overcome those obstacles to survive. That’s just life.
But what is the difference in the crime rates of those areas? It would be silly to deploy police according to the size of the population. The reasonable method would be to deploy according to the crime rate. Areas with higher crime rates should have more patrols.
Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics. The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests. Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data. Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.
Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics.
The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests.
Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data.
Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.
Is it nonsense, or is it just something that conflicts with your worldview? The ego is a funny thing. It has a way of making new ideas sound stupid and wrong, regardless of their factual basis. I don’t see a counterpoint in your response, only an emotional reaction. I’ll let you take another whack at it, once you’ve calmed down.I've heard this kind of nonsense before. It's blaming police for crime. It's line there was this much crime then when police start patrolling crime increases.
What kind of nonsense is that?
What, do we get rid of police cause that will cause crime to go down? How about we dont patrol those areas. Crime will definitely decrease.
Eh, my family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been soldiers and all the women married soldiers. I did a career and my wife was an Army brat herself. Our family get-togethers are like VFW meetings. The military has done well by us.I’d strongly advise against signing several years of your life away for 3 hots and a cot.
911 calls are wholly separate from patrols, by definition. Most 911 calls have nothing to do with police anyway.Do areas with more patrols generate more 911 calls? Not just "crime statistics" but more calls about occurring crimes.
Higher police presence neither reduces nor increases crime because crime is caused by other factors than police presence...you actually just countered your own argument from one sentence to the next.
But more 911 calls to an area would result in a greater perceived police presence merely by their responding to the greater number of calls, and it would certainly require more patrols assigned to the area to manage the greater number of calls.
I’m sorry to hear that. I served for eight years myself. It’s a shame there aren’t better ways for those with limited means to secure the benefits and stability offered by military careers.Eh, my family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been soldiers and all the women married soldiers. I did a career and my wife was an Army brat herself. Our family get-togethers are like VFW meetings. The military has done well by us.
I've heard this kind of nonsense before. It's blaming police for crime. It's line there was this much crime then when police start patrolling crime increases.
What kind of nonsense is that?
What, do we get rid of police cause that will cause crime to go down? How about we dont patrol those areas. Crime will definitely decrease.
Eh, my family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been soldiers and all the women married soldiers. I did a career and my wife was an Army brat herself. Our family get-togethers are like VFW meetings. The military has done well by us.
911 calls are wholly separate from patrols, by definition.
Most 911 calls have nothing to do with police anyway.
Is it nonsense, or is it just something that conflicts with your worldview? The ego is a funny thing. It has a way of making new ideas sound stupid and wrong, regardless of their factual basis. I don’t see a counterpoint in your response, only an emotional reaction. I’ll let you take another whack at it, once you’ve calmed down.
It causes more *reported* crime because there are more police out there to *report* said crimes, which indeed drives up crime statistics. This isn’t controversial. The baseline crime rate might be higher in those places to begin with, but the police presence does exacerbate those numbers. Further, the evidence supporting the idea that more policing leads to less crime is vanishingly thin. The vast majority of crimes prevented by patrols are auto thefts and thefts from vehicles - the kinds of crimes they’re not doing because a cop is right there watching. When it comes to serious crimes like homicide, statistics show it takes 10-17 new police hires to prevent a single solitary murder per year. In a city like Chicago with 600+ homicides in a year, that’s over 10,000 new hires - doubling the size of the entire force - to curb the murder rate. No, the lack of patrols is not the root cause of crime.Yeah, thought about it. Still nonsense.
There are no facts that bare out that having more cops causes more crime.
You don't have a counterpoint cause there isn't one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?