FTR, even scummy wife beating suspects deserve due process. This isn't the wild west where the sheriff rounds up a posse and lynches the bad guys. Neither is this Judge Dredd, where the police are judge, jury, and wife beater-beaters.
Police officers/cops: The "just a few bad apples" claim is bullshit. It is bullshit because the other "apples" do nothing about it, except conspire together to cover up the misdeeds of the "bad apples". "Good apples" would call out such misconduct, would immediately fire and then prosecute the "bad apples", but that is not what typically happens at all. The blue shield appears to always be in full force.
Peace
Hmmm.
I've seen this argument presented in various threads- notably in many of the 'evil Muslim' threads where people incredulously hold good Muslim people accountable for the actions of extremists.
It's as ridiculous an assertion here as it has been in the other threads where broad strokes paint everyone the same color.
Further, wouldn't the spin work in favour of bad cops? If logic of this sort is allowed to stand... then one could successfully argue that all cops are good cops based on the actions of good cops.
How does that make any sense?? Allowing someone to do good without intervention does not give you a share of the good, but allowing someone to do wrong without intervention ABSOLUTELY gives you a share of the wrongdoing.
The Muslim comparison is bull as well, the average Muslim does not come into contact with the extremists, and therefore does not have the opportunity to interfere or hold accountable. Nearly all police come into direct contact with malfeasance, and have a clear protocol for interference and holding those responsible accountable.
Of course you see it this way because you insist on seeing it this way.
There's been debate as to what has been 'wrong' on this forum... but you have seen every police intervention as 'wrong'. Remember when you said the cops who shot the knife wielding maniac should have scuttled into their cars and drove away instead of shooting him when he attacked them? That was a classic in the event you didn't know. Just saying.
You definitively know that all cops are bad cops because they all turn a blind eye to corrupt police work (this was the assertion I responded to that you let stand)? They're all complicit and therefore corrupt huh? Assholes. Every one of them.
Broad sweeping generalizations are poor- except, of course, if they suit RG's agenda. Got it!
Assholes, every one? No, not at all. Complicit, and therefore corrupt? Absolutely. Not necessarily thoroughly corrupt, but compromised nonetheless.
It's not a generalization, it's pretty much a fact. Do you dispute that every cop with a career of substantial length would almost inevitably witness abuse and malfeasance? I know of many police who would disagree with that as a possibility.
I don't think you do know many police who would disagree with that as a possibility. So... I'm calling bullshit.
If you're talking abuse like professional courtesies (ignoring a speeding violation) then I would agree with you. If you're talking abuse like a cop getting rough with some scumbag who just kicked the shit out of his wife and children as they detain them... then I might be inclined to agree as well- but I don't characterize that as abuse (I do understand that if a cop farts en route to the station he should face a suspension for the perp being forced to smell it without an open window in your world).
If you're talking abuse like planting a weapon in the hands of a perp who has been shot... I would not agree with you. I would say that type of abuse is not as common or accepted as you think it is. And I challenge you to establish it as typical or widespread without using your 'cop buddies' saying so.
Adrian Schoolcraft Michael A Wood Jr Joe Crystal Laura Shook
Whistleblowers have been calling folks out, and being punished for it, for a long time.
Even our resident AMT cop has made suggestions of abuse that is encouraged, overlooked, and commonplace.
You call this proof? This is supposed to stand as validation for calling every cop on the force complicit in abuse and as such... corrupt?
FTR, even scummy wife beating suspects deserve due process. This isn't the wild west where the sheriff rounds up a posse and lynches the bad guys. Neither is this Judge Dredd, where the police are judge, jury, and wife beater-beaters.
Due process.
I knew you thought that. I know a stop at Tim Horton's on the way to the station for a cup of hot chocolate and an opportunity to clear the air is preferable to treating them like the pieces of shit they are for you.
They get due process. If they get taken to the ground roughly and tossed into the car banging their head in the process... I don't give a shit.
If I'm a cop on the scene and I have the task of apprehending someone who has bashed a woman's face in... cooing in his ear and rubbing his shoulders ain't gonna be happening.
FTR, even scummy wife beating suspects deserve due process. This isn't the wild west where the sheriff rounds up a posse and lynches the bad guys. Neither is this Judge Dredd, where the police are judge, jury, and wife beater-beaters.
Due process.
I knew you thought that. I know a stop at Tim Horton's on the way to the station for a cup of hot chocolate and an opportunity to clear the air is preferable to treating them like the pieces of shit they are for you.
They get due process. If they get taken to the ground roughly and tossed into the car banging their head in the process... I don't give a shit.
If I'm a cop on the scene and I have the task of apprehending someone who has bashed a woman's face in... cooing in his ear and rubbing his shoulders ain't gonna be happening.
Oh jeez, you are seriously ridiculous sometimes. The amount of sarcasm you shove out there in order to put words in people's mouths and mischaracterize their opinions is reprehensible if not shameful. Terrible, impotent, debate tactics that undermine your argument.
Police officers/cops: The "just a few bad apples" claim is bullshit. It is bullshit because the other "apples" do nothing about it, except conspire together to cover up the misdeeds of the "bad apples". "Good apples" would call out such misconduct, would immediately fire and then prosecute the "bad apples", but that is not what typically happens at all. The blue shield appears to always be in full force.
Peace
Hmmm.
I've seen this argument presented in various threads- notably in many of the 'evil Muslim' threads where people incredulously hold good Muslim people accountable for the actions of extremists.
It's as ridiculous an assertion here as it has been in the other threads where broad strokes paint everyone the same color.
Further, wouldn't the spin work in favour of bad cops? If logic of this sort is allowed to stand... then one could successfully argue that all cops are good cops based on the actions of good cops.
How does that make any sense?? Allowing someone to do good without intervention does not give you a share of the good, but allowing someone to do wrong without intervention ABSOLUTELY gives you a share of the wrongdoing.
The Muslim comparison is bull as well, the average Muslim does not come into contact with the extremists, and therefore does not have the opportunity to interfere or hold accountable. Nearly all police come into direct contact with malfeasance, and have a clear protocol for interference and holding those responsible accountable.
Of course you see it this way because you insist on seeing it this way.
There's been debate as to what has been 'wrong' on this forum... but you have seen every police intervention as 'wrong'. Remember when you said the cops who shot the knife wielding maniac should have scuttled into their cars and drove away instead of shooting him when he attacked them? That was a classic in the event you didn't know. Just saying.
You definitively know that all cops are bad cops because they all turn a blind eye to corrupt police work (this was the assertion I responded to that you let stand)? They're all complicit and therefore corrupt huh? Assholes. Every one of them.
Broad sweeping generalizations are poor- except, of course, if they suit RG's agenda. Got it!
Assholes, every one? No, not at all. Complicit, and therefore corrupt? Absolutely. Not necessarily thoroughly corrupt, but compromised nonetheless.
It's not a generalization, it's pretty much a fact. Do you dispute that every cop with a career of substantial length would almost inevitably witness abuse and malfeasance? I know of many police who would disagree with that as a possibility.
I don't think you do know many police who would disagree with that as a possibility. So... I'm calling bullshit.
If you're talking abuse like professional courtesies (ignoring a speeding violation) then I would agree with you. If you're talking abuse like a cop getting rough with some scumbag who just kicked the shit out of his wife and children as they detain them... then I might be inclined to agree as well- but I don't characterize that as abuse (I do understand that if a cop farts en route to the station he should face a suspension for the perp being forced to smell it without an open window in your world).
If you're talking abuse like planting a weapon in the hands of a perp who has been shot... I would not agree with you. I would say that type of abuse is not as common or accepted as you think it is. And I challenge you to establish it as typical or widespread without using your 'cop buddies' saying so.
Adrian Schoolcraft Michael A Wood Jr Joe Crystal Laura Shook
Whistleblowers have been calling folks out, and being punished for it, for a long time.
Even our resident AMT cop has made suggestions of abuse that is encouraged, overlooked, and commonplace.
You call this proof? This is supposed to stand as validation for calling every cop on the force complicit in abuse and as such... corrupt?
Absurd.
You see what you want to see. No matter how many people assert that the abuse is widespread, and how much evidence is amassed, you go the low route and just deny, deny, deny.
Police officers/cops: The "just a few bad apples" claim is bullshit. It is bullshit because the other "apples" do nothing about it, except conspire together to cover up the misdeeds of the "bad apples". "Good apples" would call out such misconduct, would immediately fire and then prosecute the "bad apples", but that is not what typically happens at all. The blue shield appears to always be in full force.
Peace
Hmmm.
I've seen this argument presented in various threads- notably in many of the 'evil Muslim' threads where people incredulously hold good Muslim people accountable for the actions of extremists.
It's as ridiculous an assertion here as it has been in the other threads where broad strokes paint everyone the same color.
Further, wouldn't the spin work in favour of bad cops? If logic of this sort is allowed to stand... then one could successfully argue that all cops are good cops based on the actions of good cops.
How does that make any sense?? Allowing someone to do good without intervention does not give you a share of the good, but allowing someone to do wrong without intervention ABSOLUTELY gives you a share of the wrongdoing.
The Muslim comparison is bull as well, the average Muslim does not come into contact with the extremists, and therefore does not have the opportunity to interfere or hold accountable. Nearly all police come into direct contact with malfeasance, and have a clear protocol for interference and holding those responsible accountable.
Of course you see it this way because you insist on seeing it this way.
There's been debate as to what has been 'wrong' on this forum... but you have seen every police intervention as 'wrong'. Remember when you said the cops who shot the knife wielding maniac should have scuttled into their cars and drove away instead of shooting him when he attacked them? That was a classic in the event you didn't know. Just saying.
You definitively know that all cops are bad cops because they all turn a blind eye to corrupt police work (this was the assertion I responded to that you let stand)? They're all complicit and therefore corrupt huh? Assholes. Every one of them.
Broad sweeping generalizations are poor- except, of course, if they suit RG's agenda. Got it!
Assholes, every one? No, not at all. Complicit, and therefore corrupt? Absolutely. Not necessarily thoroughly corrupt, but compromised nonetheless.
It's not a generalization, it's pretty much a fact. Do you dispute that every cop with a career of substantial length would almost inevitably witness abuse and malfeasance? I know of many police who would disagree with that as a possibility.
I don't think you do know many police who would disagree with that as a possibility. So... I'm calling bullshit.
If you're talking abuse like professional courtesies (ignoring a speeding violation) then I would agree with you. If you're talking abuse like a cop getting rough with some scumbag who just kicked the shit out of his wife and children as they detain them... then I might be inclined to agree as well- but I don't characterize that as abuse (I do understand that if a cop farts en route to the station he should face a suspension for the perp being forced to smell it without an open window in your world).
If you're talking abuse like planting a weapon in the hands of a perp who has been shot... I would not agree with you. I would say that type of abuse is not as common or accepted as you think it is. And I challenge you to establish it as typical or widespread without using your 'cop buddies' saying so.
Adrian Schoolcraft Michael A Wood Jr Joe Crystal Laura Shook
Whistleblowers have been calling folks out, and being punished for it, for a long time.
Even our resident AMT cop has made suggestions of abuse that is encouraged, overlooked, and commonplace.
You call this proof? This is supposed to stand as validation for calling every cop on the force complicit in abuse and as such... corrupt?
Absurd.
You see what you want to see. No matter how many people assert that the abuse is widespread, and how much evidence is amassed, you go the low route and just deny, deny, deny.
Get serious. The volume of police work that is done daily across your country, trot a few names out, reference your drinking buddies on the force, and call that a slam dunk?
I wasn't being sarcastic when I referenced your policing suggestion to hop in the old cruiser and take off when a knife wielding maniac is menacing towards you.
I bring it up again because this typifies your silly perspective on police and police work. You speak of perspective? You are lost, man. You still insist every cop is complicit in an out of control, rogue faction that operates under Star Chamber.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm a fool again, but at least spend a moment thinking about what you are trying to feed people and why they might be thinking you've smoked a bit too much ganja without buying in.
You know, Lately some threads on AMT have become NSFW. Some posters here genuinely have absolute disdain for law enforcement and govt. At times I would not want my fellow workers reading over my shoulder the anti-police posts I read sometimes lest I be grouped as one of them. Debates sometimes turn into real colours of the poster and it feels like there are actual people that are anti-police. Sad.
Police officers/cops: The "just a few bad apples" claim is bullshit. It is bullshit because the other "apples" do nothing about it, except conspire together to cover up the misdeeds of the "bad apples". "Good apples" would call out such misconduct, would immediately fire and then prosecute the "bad apples", but that is not what typically happens at all. The blue shield appears to always be in full force.
Peace
Hmmm.
I've seen this argument presented in various threads- notably in many of the 'evil Muslim' threads where people incredulously hold good Muslim people accountable for the actions of extremists.
It's as ridiculous an assertion here as it has been in the other threads where broad strokes paint everyone the same color.
Further, wouldn't the spin work in favour of bad cops? If logic of this sort is allowed to stand... then one could successfully argue that all cops are good cops based on the actions of good cops.
How does that make any sense?? Allowing someone to do good without intervention does not give you a share of the good, but allowing someone to do wrong without intervention ABSOLUTELY gives you a share of the wrongdoing.
The Muslim comparison is bull as well, the average Muslim does not come into contact with the extremists, and therefore does not have the opportunity to interfere or hold accountable. Nearly all police come into direct contact with malfeasance, and have a clear protocol for interference and holding those responsible accountable.
Of course you see it this way because you insist on seeing it this way.
There's been debate as to what has been 'wrong' on this forum... but you have seen every police intervention as 'wrong'. Remember when you said the cops who shot the knife wielding maniac should have scuttled into their cars and drove away instead of shooting him when he attacked them? That was a classic in the event you didn't know. Just saying.
You definitively know that all cops are bad cops because they all turn a blind eye to corrupt police work (this was the assertion I responded to that you let stand)? They're all complicit and therefore corrupt huh? Assholes. Every one of them.
Broad sweeping generalizations are poor- except, of course, if they suit RG's agenda. Got it!
Assholes, every one? No, not at all. Complicit, and therefore corrupt? Absolutely. Not necessarily thoroughly corrupt, but compromised nonetheless.
It's not a generalization, it's pretty much a fact. Do you dispute that every cop with a career of substantial length would almost inevitably witness abuse and malfeasance? I know of many police who would disagree with that as a possibility.
I don't think you do know many police who would disagree with that as a possibility. So... I'm calling bullshit.
If you're talking abuse like professional courtesies (ignoring a speeding violation) then I would agree with you. If you're talking abuse like a cop getting rough with some scumbag who just kicked the shit out of his wife and children as they detain them... then I might be inclined to agree as well- but I don't characterize that as abuse (I do understand that if a cop farts en route to the station he should face a suspension for the perp being forced to smell it without an open window in your world).
If you're talking abuse like planting a weapon in the hands of a perp who has been shot... I would not agree with you. I would say that type of abuse is not as common or accepted as you think it is. And I challenge you to establish it as typical or widespread without using your 'cop buddies' saying so.
Adrian Schoolcraft Michael A Wood Jr Joe Crystal Laura Shook
Whistleblowers have been calling folks out, and being punished for it, for a long time.
Even our resident AMT cop has made suggestions of abuse that is encouraged, overlooked, and commonplace.
You call this proof? This is supposed to stand as validation for calling every cop on the force complicit in abuse and as such... corrupt?
Absurd.
You see what you want to see. No matter how many people assert that the abuse is widespread, and how much evidence is amassed, you go the low route and just deny, deny, deny.
Get serious. The volume of police work that is done daily across your country, trot a few names out, reference your drinking buddies on the force, and call that a slam dunk?
I wasn't being sarcastic when I referenced your policing suggestion to hop in the old cruiser and take off when a knife wielding maniac is menacing towards you.
I bring it up again because this typifies your silly perspective on police and police work. You speak of perspective? You are lost, man. You still insist every cop is complicit in an out of control, rogue faction that operates under Star Chamber.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm a fool again, but at least spend a moment thinking about what you are trying to feed people and why they might be thinking you've smoked a bit too much ganja without buying in.
You are not a fool, but you are ranting and raving like some sort of crusader. Yes, there is a huge volume of good work done by the vast majority of police on a daily basis. There is also a huge volume of good work done by the vast majority of Catholic priests on a daily basis. The complicity of priests, and particularly the leaders, in the child abuse problem within the church is similar to the complicity of police in abuses of civil rights. I am not comparing child molestation to roughing up suspects, or to bumpy rides, I am only comparing the systematic cover-up and the legions of followers who did nothing because they wouldn't believe it, no matter how widespread and pernicious it seemed to be. How much more "evidence" do you need, when it has come to the same level of common knowledge that the church scandal had reached before anyone of authority took it seriously.
You know, Lately some threads on AMT have become NSFW. Some posters here genuinely have absolute disdain for law enforcement and govt. At times I would not want my fellow workers reading over my shoulder the anti-police posts I read sometimes lest I be grouped as one of them. Debates sometimes turn into real colours of the poster and it feels like there are actual people that are anti-police. Sad.
Guess what... You aren't a moderator.
Please stop trying to censor these threads like you have been, it isn't your job.
Police officers/cops: The "just a few bad apples" claim is bullshit. It is bullshit because the other "apples" do nothing about it, except conspire together to cover up the misdeeds of the "bad apples". "Good apples" would call out such misconduct, would immediately fire and then prosecute the "bad apples", but that is not what typically happens at all. The blue shield appears to always be in full force.
Peace
Hmmm.
I've seen this argument presented in various threads- notably in many of the 'evil Muslim' threads where people incredulously hold good Muslim people accountable for the actions of extremists.
It's as ridiculous an assertion here as it has been in the other threads where broad strokes paint everyone the same color.
Further, wouldn't the spin work in favour of bad cops? If logic of this sort is allowed to stand... then one could successfully argue that all cops are good cops based on the actions of good cops.
How does that make any sense?? Allowing someone to do good without intervention does not give you a share of the good, but allowing someone to do wrong without intervention ABSOLUTELY gives you a share of the wrongdoing.
The Muslim comparison is bull as well, the average Muslim does not come into contact with the extremists, and therefore does not have the opportunity to interfere or hold accountable. Nearly all police come into direct contact with malfeasance, and have a clear protocol for interference and holding those responsible accountable.
Of course you see it this way because you insist on seeing it this way.
There's been debate as to what has been 'wrong' on this forum... but you have seen every police intervention as 'wrong'. Remember when you said the cops who shot the knife wielding maniac should have scuttled into their cars and drove away instead of shooting him when he attacked them? That was a classic in the event you didn't know. Just saying.
You definitively know that all cops are bad cops because they all turn a blind eye to corrupt police work (this was the assertion I responded to that you let stand)? They're all complicit and therefore corrupt huh? Assholes. Every one of them.
Broad sweeping generalizations are poor- except, of course, if they suit RG's agenda. Got it!
Assholes, every one? No, not at all. Complicit, and therefore corrupt? Absolutely. Not necessarily thoroughly corrupt, but compromised nonetheless.
It's not a generalization, it's pretty much a fact. Do you dispute that every cop with a career of substantial length would almost inevitably witness abuse and malfeasance? I know of many police who would disagree with that as a possibility.
I don't think you do know many police who would disagree with that as a possibility. So... I'm calling bullshit.
If you're talking abuse like professional courtesies (ignoring a speeding violation) then I would agree with you. If you're talking abuse like a cop getting rough with some scumbag who just kicked the shit out of his wife and children as they detain them... then I might be inclined to agree as well- but I don't characterize that as abuse (I do understand that if a cop farts en route to the station he should face a suspension for the perp being forced to smell it without an open window in your world).
If you're talking abuse like planting a weapon in the hands of a perp who has been shot... I would not agree with you. I would say that type of abuse is not as common or accepted as you think it is. And I challenge you to establish it as typical or widespread without using your 'cop buddies' saying so.
Adrian Schoolcraft Michael A Wood Jr Joe Crystal Laura Shook
Whistleblowers have been calling folks out, and being punished for it, for a long time.
Even our resident AMT cop has made suggestions of abuse that is encouraged, overlooked, and commonplace.
You call this proof? This is supposed to stand as validation for calling every cop on the force complicit in abuse and as such... corrupt?
Absurd.
You see what you want to see. No matter how many people assert that the abuse is widespread, and how much evidence is amassed, you go the low route and just deny, deny, deny.
Get serious. The volume of police work that is done daily across your country, trot a few names out, reference your drinking buddies on the force, and call that a slam dunk?
I wasn't being sarcastic when I referenced your policing suggestion to hop in the old cruiser and take off when a knife wielding maniac is menacing towards you.
I bring it up again because this typifies your silly perspective on police and police work. You speak of perspective? You are lost, man. You still insist every cop is complicit in an out of control, rogue faction that operates under Star Chamber.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm a fool again, but at least spend a moment thinking about what you are trying to feed people and why they might be thinking you've smoked a bit too much ganja without buying in.
You are not a fool, but you are ranting and raving like some sort of crusader. Yes, there is a huge volume of good work done by the vast majority of police on a daily basis. There is also a huge volume of good work done by the vast majority of Catholic priests on a daily basis. The complicity of priests, and particularly the leaders, in the child abuse problem within the church is similar to the complicity of police in abuses of civil rights. I am not comparing child molestation to roughing up suspects, or to bumpy rides, I am only comparing the systematic cover-up and the legions of followers who did nothing because they wouldn't believe it, no matter how widespread and pernicious it seemed to be. How much more "evidence" do you need, when it has come to the same level of common knowledge that the church scandal had reached before anyone of authority took it seriously.
I'm not ranting and raving on my side of this issue any more than you are from yours. Don't attempt to belittle me to strengthen what you're trying to present.
I am not going to brush aside your comparison because it does not fit my narrative as you like to do. If one was inclined to believe there are systematic cover ups, nation wide within our policing systems... I would state that your comparison is strong; however, I'm not inclined to believe there is. As such, I'm not willing to accept it.
Without a doubt, there have been cases where police work was done poorly, and individuals have taken steps to cover their sloppy work. In some cases, police work has even been malicious. I'm not going to deny this, but show me any profession that doesn't practice the same tactics at times. Calling it 'systematic' is taking it too far in my mind. Couple that with insisting every cop is complicit in abuse and I feel that is- I'm struggling for a term here- preposterous.
The 'epidemic' you speak of has not reached proportions the Catholic Church did when it was revealed some priests were engaged in pedophilia. These people getting shot are criminals engaged in crimes and in the majority of cases... they resisted arrest. Anti-police people have been trying to make their argument using these cases... and 'abuse' is not on trial here as much as 'methodology' is.
Police have a very difficult job. Their decisions and actions can and do result in life or death. So understand how police officers band together to protect themselves. Hell they count on each other to keep each other safe. In my work, fuck the guy in next cube. He's backstabbing to get a bigger raise. Whole different dynamic.
Now this bond can have negative side affects where some cops may with hold evidence or do things to protect their fellow officer when they fuck up. Get that it happens and if criminal they should be held accountable.
There are good and bad cops. And with video the bad ones are being exposed. BUT we need cops and we need to help them be best they can be. One of the most underrated human jobs.
You know, Lately some threads on AMT have become NSFW. Some posters here genuinely have absolute disdain for law enforcement and govt. At times I would not want my fellow workers reading over my shoulder the anti-police posts I read sometimes lest I be grouped as one of them. Debates sometimes turn into real colours of the poster and it feels like there are actual people that are anti-police. Sad.
You aren't a moderator. Please stop trying to censor these threads like you have been, it isn't your job.
This is comical. All I am saying is that there a select few that post ventriloque speech toward govt and police. I am not censoring anything. I speak how I feel.
I have really enjoyed this banter guys, please keep it going. In other news, the officer in Cleveland was found to act in a reasonable fashion by 2 OUTSIDE investigators after that little darling Tamir Rice decided to engage the officer responding w/ a gun that turned out to be a replica. Word to the Wise, Don't do that…Even if you are 13 or 103. Time for the "experts" of the Grand-O-Jury to take a look at this one.
Thanks for posting PJHawks.That article is on the money and has mirrored my whole stance on the BLM movement.I couldn't be in more agreement.
That community needs to look deep in the mirror and start to fix from within.First and foremost.
This is what Dan- o has been saying for months here,but he gets called a racist and a dirty cop.Its not rascist if you look at the numbers and data and try to find solutions based on fact not emotion over media sensationalized hyperbole.Time for a little less PC and more common sense
Gambs,I agree with 30b stance here.I don't think he's off base at all.I actually think the soft stance that some have been taking against these shitheads is part of the perceived PC issue.
great piece in sunday's Philly Inquirer about race police which provides some great stats on black crime.
Of note (lending much credibility to the modern police force):
Crime rates were much higher 20 years ago, however. In New York City in 1990, for example, there were 2,262 homicides. Last year there were 333, a drop of 85 percent. New York's crime drop is the steepest in the nation, but crime has fallen at a historic rate nationwide as well - by about 40 percent - since the early 1990s.
The greatest beneficiaries of that crime drop have been minorities. More than 10,000 minority males are alive today in New York who would have been dead if the city's homicide rate had remained at its early 1990s levels.
This crime decrease is the result of a policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally.
And (something people don't tend to address in any meaningful way):
Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 12 percent of the national population. Blacks of all ages are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined.
That black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. The national rate of homicides committed by blacks is eight times that of whites and Hispanics combined. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at 10 times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined.
great piece in sunday's Philly Inquirer about race police which provides some great stats on black crime.
Of note (lending much credibility to the modern police force):
Crime rates were much higher 20 years ago, however. In New York City in 1990, for example, there were 2,262 homicides. Last year there were 333, a drop of 85 percent. New York's crime drop is the steepest in the nation, but crime has fallen at a historic rate nationwide as well - by about 40 percent - since the early 1990s.
The greatest beneficiaries of that crime drop have been minorities. More than 10,000 minority males are alive today in New York who would have been dead if the city's homicide rate had remained at its early 1990s levels.
This crime decrease is the result of a policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally.
And (something people don't tend to address in any meaningful way):
Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 12 percent of the national population. Blacks of all ages are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined.
That black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. The national rate of homicides committed by blacks is eight times that of whites and Hispanics combined. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at 10 times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined.
New York police can not claim to be responsible for the reduction in crime rates, nor can any American police force. The reduction in crime has occurred internationally and is well documented in Canada, much of Europe, Australia, and others. There are many theories but changes in policing are not seen as one of the credible factors responsible.
So what factors might be responsible? One is generational change - as the Boomers aged out of the prime window for criminal activity societies were left with a much larger group of older people and a smaller group of youths with presumably more supervision and potentially fewer opportunities for crime. Some also suggest that the Millenials have been raised to not take risks, which can be negative in some circumstances but positive in others - Millenials overall are less involved in crime, have fewer motor vehicle accidents, and are more socially responsible (sorry to all those who argue that "kids these days" are a waste of time). Still other theories include the decline in crack cocaine use and the reduction in lead in the environment as unleaded gasoline became mandatory (lead is a potent neurotoxin).
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I wasn't suggesting the police were solely responsible for the reduction of crime. Of course the reduction is multifaceted.
Are you suggesting enhanced policing tactics have nothing to do with it?
Yes, actually, I am suggesting exactly that. Policing tactics are all over the map in the areas that have seen a reduction in crime rates. Even within the US policing tactics varied widely among cities that saw the same reductions in crime.
An excerpt from a larger article talking about various theories:
Roman, however, is unsure if policing impacts crime rates as much as its proponents argue. He points out that three cities that experienced large crime declines—Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Diego—pursued vastly different policing strategies. In New York, the size of the police force quadrupled in the 1990s and the use of stop, question, and frisk created an “oppositional” relationship between neighborhoods and officers, Roman says. In San Diego, crime declined without a significant increase in the number of police on the beat. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., police chief Cathy Lanier has critiqued hot spot policing and stop, question, and frisk and has focused on community-oriented policing, even speaking about the need to hire officers who display “empathy.”
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I wasn't suggesting the police were solely responsible for the reduction of crime. Of course the reduction is multifaceted.
Are you suggesting enhanced policing tactics have nothing to do with it?
Yes, actually, I am suggesting exactly that. Policing tactics are all over the map in the areas that have seen a reduction in crime rates. Even within the US policing tactics varied widely among cities that saw the same reductions in crime.
An excerpt from a larger article talking about various theories:
Roman, however, is unsure if policing impacts crime rates as much as its proponents argue. He points out that three cities that experienced large crime declines—Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Diego—pursued vastly different policing strategies. In New York, the size of the police force quadrupled in the 1990s and the use of stop, question, and frisk created an “oppositional” relationship between neighborhoods and officers, Roman says. In San Diego, crime declined without a significant increase in the number of police on the beat. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., police chief Cathy Lanier has critiqued hot spot policing and stop, question, and frisk and has focused on community-oriented policing, even speaking about the need to hire officers who display “empathy.”
Well then I'd humbly suggest you are wrong.
I mean... gas emissions might very well be the determining factor, but others, such as the writer of the piece PJHawks submitted, would suggest otherwise:
"This crime decrease is the result of a policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally. Police now fanatically gather and analyze up-to-the-minute crime data and devise tactics accordingly. Top brass holds commanders accountable for crime on their watch. For decades, the rap against the police was that they ignored crime in minority neighborhoods. The policing revolution now keeps departments focused like a laser beam on where people are most being victimized, and that is in minority communities."
Even Roman, who you quoted above is 'unsure' of the impact revised policing strategies have had on the astronomical drop in crime rates.
I wasn't suggesting the police were solely responsible for the reduction of crime. Of course the reduction is multifaceted.
Are you suggesting enhanced policing tactics have nothing to do with it?
Yes, actually, I am suggesting exactly that. Policing tactics are all over the map in the areas that have seen a reduction in crime rates. Even within the US policing tactics varied widely among cities that saw the same reductions in crime.
An excerpt from a larger article talking about various theories:
Roman, however, is unsure if policing impacts crime rates as much as its proponents argue. He points out that three cities that experienced large crime declines—Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Diego—pursued vastly different policing strategies. In New York, the size of the police force quadrupled in the 1990s and the use of stop, question, and frisk created an “oppositional” relationship between neighborhoods and officers, Roman says. In San Diego, crime declined without a significant increase in the number of police on the beat. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., police chief Cathy Lanier has critiqued hot spot policing and stop, question, and frisk and has focused on community-oriented policing, even speaking about the need to hire officers who display “empathy.”
Well then I'd humbly suggest you are wrong.
I mean... gas emissions might very well be the determining factor, but others, such as the writer of the piece PJHawks submitted, would suggest otherwise:
"This crime decrease is the result of a policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally. Police now fanatically gather and analyze up-to-the-minute crime data and devise tactics accordingly. Top brass holds commanders accountable for crime on their watch. For decades, the rap against the police was that they ignored crime in minority neighborhoods. The policing revolution now keeps departments focused like a laser beam on where people are most being victimized, and that is in minority communities."
Even Roman, who you quoted above is 'unsure' of the impact revised policing strategies have had on the astronomical drop in crime rates.
I find it difficult to credit that anyone can believe that an international decline in crime that includes countries with policing strategies as diverse as the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, Estonia, Poland and Japan can be traced to a change in policing in New York. I'm certainly in favour of good policing that's "accountable for crime on their watch". And okay, I'll accept that technological and training improvement have likely improved the efficacy of police, particularly in larger cities, but that's icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I did not see that the author of the article PJHawks submitted included any evidence for that her assertion, and it's an assertion that's largely been proven incorrect.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Well you've reversed direction somewhat- reluctantly conceding that 'technological and training improvement have likely improved the efficacy of police'.
Outside of opinion, do you have any backing that lends support for your denial of the assertion that advanced police work is largely responsible for the significant drop in crime the US has experienced? You stated it's 'an assertion that's largely been proven incorrect'.
How has this been proven?
Edit: and who's taking any credit for international decline in crime rates? The article referenced the US only.
Thanks for posting PJHawks.That article is on the money and has mirrored my whole stance on the BLM movement.I couldn't be in more agreement.
That community needs to look deep in the mirror and start to fix from within.First and foremost.
This is what Dan- o has been saying for months here,but he gets called a racist and a dirty cop.Its not rascist if you look at the numbers and data and try to find solutions based on fact not emotion over media sensationalized hyperbole.Time for a little less PC and more common sense
"Shitheads" you say... You sound like a salty old beat copper busting that old school term out pal. Stay wise rr... Btw, will be most likely wearing my new PJ knit hat this week in northern Wisco ripping For Muskies.... Supposed to snow up Der on thurs. Go Cubs Go!!!!
Well you've reversed direction somewhat- reluctantly conceding that 'technological and training improvement have likely improved the efficacy of police'.
Outside of opinion, do you have any backing that lends support for your denial of the assertion that advanced police work is largely responsible for the significant drop in crime the US has experienced? You stated it's 'an assertion that's largely been proven incorrect'.
How has this been proven?
Edit: and who's taking any credit for international decline in crime rates? The article referenced the US only.
Yes, exactly.
My point is that the decline in US crime rates mirrors the international decline in crime rates; thus, no theory that proposes a purely American (or even North American) reason for this decline can be correct. Articles that write about this as if the decline in crime rate is solely an American achievement are missing the international context. Specific changes in police practice can only be a factor if those same changes were made in all the nations in which declining crime rates have been seen, and this is not the case.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Well you've reversed direction somewhat- reluctantly conceding that 'technological and training improvement have likely improved the efficacy of police'.
Outside of opinion, do you have any backing that lends support for your denial of the assertion that advanced police work is largely responsible for the significant drop in crime the US has experienced? You stated it's 'an assertion that's largely been proven incorrect'.
How has this been proven?
Edit: and who's taking any credit for international decline in crime rates? The article referenced the US only.
Yes, exactly.
My point is that the decline in US crime rates mirrors the international decline in crime rates; thus, no theory that proposes a purely American (or even North American) reason for this decline can be correct. Articles that write about this as if the decline in crime rate is solely an American achievement are missing the international context. Specific changes in police practice can only be a factor if those same changes were made in all the nations in which declining crime rates have been seen, and this is not the case.
This would mean that all significant variables among the said countries are homogeneous.
We know this is far from the truth; therefore, we can look intrinsically for explanations without discrediting or dismissing them so eagerly.
I have really enjoyed this banter guys, please keep it going. In other news, the officer in Cleveland was found to act in a reasonable fashion by 2 OUTSIDE investigators after that little darling Tamir Rice decided to engage the officer responding w/ a gun that turned out to be a replica. Word to the Wise, Don't do that…Even if you are 13 or 103. Time for the "experts" of the Grand-O-Jury to take a look at this one.
Comments
This isn't the wild west where the sheriff rounds up a posse and lynches the bad guys.
Neither is this Judge Dredd, where the police are judge, jury, and wife beater-beaters.
Due process.
Absurd.
They get due process. If they get taken to the ground roughly and tossed into the car banging their head in the process... I don't give a shit.
If I'm a cop on the scene and I have the task of apprehending someone who has bashed a woman's face in... cooing in his ear and rubbing his shoulders ain't gonna be happening.
Terrible, impotent, debate tactics that undermine your argument.
No matter how many people assert that the abuse is widespread, and how much evidence is amassed, you go the low route and just deny, deny, deny.
I wasn't being sarcastic when I referenced your policing suggestion to hop in the old cruiser and take off when a knife wielding maniac is menacing towards you.
I bring it up again because this typifies your silly perspective on police and police work. You speak of perspective? You are lost, man. You still insist every cop is complicit in an out of control, rogue faction that operates under Star Chamber.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm a fool again, but at least spend a moment thinking about what you are trying to feed people and why they might be thinking you've smoked a bit too much ganja without buying in.
Lately some threads on AMT have become NSFW.
Some posters here genuinely have absolute disdain for law enforcement and govt.
At times I would not want my fellow workers reading over my shoulder the anti-police posts I read sometimes lest I be grouped as one of them.
Debates sometimes turn into real colours of the poster and it feels like there are actual people that are anti-police.
Sad.
Yes, there is a huge volume of good work done by the vast majority of police on a daily basis.
There is also a huge volume of good work done by the vast majority of Catholic priests on a daily basis.
The complicity of priests, and particularly the leaders, in the child abuse problem within the church is similar to the complicity of police in abuses of civil rights.
I am not comparing child molestation to roughing up suspects, or to bumpy rides, I am only comparing the systematic cover-up and the legions of followers who did nothing because they wouldn't believe it, no matter how widespread and pernicious it seemed to be.
How much more "evidence" do you need, when it has come to the same level of common knowledge that the church scandal had reached before anyone of authority took it seriously.
You aren't a moderator.
Please stop trying to censor these threads like you have been, it isn't your job.
I am not going to brush aside your comparison because it does not fit my narrative as you like to do. If one was inclined to believe there are systematic cover ups, nation wide within our policing systems... I would state that your comparison is strong; however, I'm not inclined to believe there is. As such, I'm not willing to accept it.
Without a doubt, there have been cases where police work was done poorly, and individuals have taken steps to cover their sloppy work. In some cases, police work has even been malicious. I'm not going to deny this, but show me any profession that doesn't practice the same tactics at times. Calling it 'systematic' is taking it too far in my mind. Couple that with insisting every cop is complicit in abuse and I feel that is- I'm struggling for a term here- preposterous.
The 'epidemic' you speak of has not reached proportions the Catholic Church did when it was revealed some priests were engaged in pedophilia. These people getting shot are criminals engaged in crimes and in the majority of cases... they resisted arrest. Anti-police people have been trying to make their argument using these cases... and 'abuse' is not on trial here as much as 'methodology' is.
Police have a very difficult job. Their decisions and actions can and do result in life or death. So understand how police officers band together to protect themselves. Hell they count on each other to keep each other safe. In my work, fuck the guy in next cube. He's backstabbing to get a bigger raise. Whole different dynamic.
Now this bond can have negative side affects where some cops may with hold evidence or do things to protect their fellow officer when they fuck up. Get that it happens and if criminal they should be held accountable.
There are good and bad cops. And with video the bad ones are being exposed. BUT we need cops and we need to help them be best they can be. One of the most underrated human jobs.
All I am saying is that there a select few that post ventriloque speech toward govt and police.
I am not censoring anything.
I speak how I feel.
In other news, the officer in Cleveland was found to act in a reasonable fashion by 2 OUTSIDE investigators after that little darling Tamir Rice decided to engage the officer responding w/ a gun that turned out to be a replica. Word to the Wise, Don't do that…Even if you are 13 or 103. Time for the "experts" of the Grand-O-Jury to take a look at this one.
great piece in sunday's Philly Inquirer about race police which provides some great stats on black crime.
That community needs to look deep in the mirror and start to fix from within.First and foremost.
This is what Dan- o has been saying for months here,but he gets called a racist and a dirty cop.Its not rascist if you look at the numbers and data and try to find solutions based on fact not emotion over media sensationalized hyperbole.Time for a little less PC and more common sense
Crime rates were much higher 20 years ago, however. In New York City in 1990, for example, there were 2,262 homicides. Last year there were 333, a drop of 85 percent. New York's crime drop is the steepest in the nation, but crime has fallen at a historic rate nationwide as well - by about 40 percent - since the early 1990s.
The greatest beneficiaries of that crime drop have been minorities. More than 10,000 minority males are alive today in New York who would have been dead if the city's homicide rate had remained at its early 1990s levels.
This crime decrease is the result of a policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally.
And (something people don't tend to address in any meaningful way):
Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 12 percent of the national population. Blacks of all ages are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined.
That black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. The national rate of homicides committed by blacks is eight times that of whites and Hispanics combined. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at 10 times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined.
So what factors might be responsible? One is generational change - as the Boomers aged out of the prime window for criminal activity societies were left with a much larger group of older people and a smaller group of youths with presumably more supervision and potentially fewer opportunities for crime. Some also suggest that the Millenials have been raised to not take risks, which can be negative in some circumstances but positive in others - Millenials overall are less involved in crime, have fewer motor vehicle accidents, and are more socially responsible (sorry to all those who argue that "kids these days" are a waste of time). Still other theories include the decline in crack cocaine use and the reduction in lead in the environment as unleaded gasoline became mandatory (lead is a potent neurotoxin).
Are you suggesting enhanced policing tactics have nothing to do with it?
An excerpt from a larger article talking about various theories:
Roman, however, is unsure if policing impacts crime rates as much as its proponents argue. He points out that three cities that experienced large crime declines—Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Diego—pursued vastly different policing strategies. In New York, the size of the police force quadrupled in the 1990s and the use of stop, question, and frisk created an “oppositional” relationship between neighborhoods and officers, Roman says. In San Diego, crime declined without a significant increase in the number of police on the beat. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., police chief Cathy Lanier has critiqued hot spot policing and stop, question, and frisk and has focused on community-oriented policing, even speaking about the need to hire officers who display “empathy.”
I mean... gas emissions might very well be the determining factor, but others, such as the writer of the piece PJHawks submitted, would suggest otherwise:
"This crime decrease is the result of a policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally. Police now fanatically gather and analyze up-to-the-minute crime data and devise tactics accordingly. Top brass holds commanders accountable for crime on their watch. For decades, the rap against the police was that they ignored crime in minority neighborhoods. The policing revolution now keeps departments focused like a laser beam on where people are most being victimized, and that is in minority communities."
Even Roman, who you quoted above is 'unsure' of the impact revised policing strategies have had on the astronomical drop in crime rates.
Well you've reversed direction somewhat- reluctantly conceding that 'technological and training improvement have likely improved the efficacy of police'.
Outside of opinion, do you have any backing that lends support for your denial of the assertion that advanced police work is largely responsible for the significant drop in crime the US has experienced? You stated it's 'an assertion that's largely been proven incorrect'.
How has this been proven?
Edit: and who's taking any credit for international decline in crime rates? The article referenced the US only.
Stay wise rr... Btw, will be most likely wearing my new PJ knit hat this week in northern Wisco ripping For Muskies.... Supposed to snow up Der on thurs. Go Cubs Go!!!!
My point is that the decline in US crime rates mirrors the international decline in crime rates; thus, no theory that proposes a purely American (or even North American) reason for this decline can be correct. Articles that write about this as if the decline in crime rate is solely an American achievement are missing the international context. Specific changes in police practice can only be a factor if those same changes were made in all the nations in which declining crime rates have been seen, and this is not the case.
We know this is far from the truth; therefore, we can look intrinsically for explanations without discrediting or dismissing them so eagerly.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."