I would certainly hope so.

Two graphs, of two cities , do not represent the US. There is no counter argument to be made. single experiences are not representative of the entire population.

So please tell me why you posted them? If I post two graphs saying the opposite does that mean that I’m right?


More policing= more prisoners

You really think more policing is the answer? We have 20% of the worlds prison population and we represent like 5% of the worlds population.

It is clear that the evidence shows extra policing of current policies is not the answer.

Yeah but then the real problems of systemic racism and poverty would need to be tackled.
Ain't nobody got time for that.

It was 3 graphs. One of the links didn't work. And I could post 100 more showing the same thing if I was motivated.

I am honestly not sure if you could find a single piece of evidence to support an argument progressive criminal justice reforms in the last couple years resulted in a decrease in crime.

Anyways, nowhere did I say "more policing" is the answer. I just said criminal justice reforms in the last 2 years have had disastrous results, and this should be acknowledged moving forward, rather than doubling down. In the immediate term it probably is necessary to get criminals off the streets. It actually seems judicial "reform" is a bigger problem than policing in this regard. As 5 South suggested, wealth inequality is the real driver. But I dont think you can even begin to tackle this issue in an environment with such a high crime rate.

You dont effectively reduce the prison population by just decriminalizing serious crimes. You do it by creating an environment where no one feels compelled to be a criminal.

And all the countries with small incarcerated populations get this. They don't have small prison populations because they don't prosecute car jackings. They have small incarcerated populations because no one is attempting car jackings.

You posted a graph showing people getting pulled over went down after George Floyd protests…. in the state and maybe city he was murdered in

Of course that’s what’s going to happen, the city is afraid of more problems , they aren’t going to pull over MORE people.

Once again, posting 3 graphs , that are heavily biased and only look at 2-3 cities is dumb. Also thinking 2 years after Covid is representative of anything is dumb

Please go take a stats class on YouTube and looking up sample size and confidence intervals.


So just clarify, do you think there is more policing needed, stay the same, or less?

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-...nd-most-crime/


Crime in 2020 was 60% lower than in 1980. The crime rate began consistently declining in the early 1990s and fell every year between 2001 and 2020.

First, the fact that your actions might be caught on camera doesn't tell me much. It is not uncommon for a killings to occur in relatively busy public areas. If you are in public, there is an excellent change that you are on tape.

Second, the fact that the officers are black and the victim is black doesn't tell me much about the officers' intent. People kill other people all the time for reasons other than racial animus.

Third, I never said that these officers started their shift with a specific intent to kill someone. Indeed, that is highly unlikely. But that level of premeditation isn't necessarily required to support a murder charge. I'll give you an example. If you hit a drunk in a bar with a pint glass, a shard of glass severs an artery, and the person bleeds out in two minutes, you are highly likely to be charged with manslaughter.

If you beat a man outside a bar unconscious, and then you spend five minutes dragging his body around the corner, and then you kick him in the head three times and he dies of a skull fracture, you are likely to be charged with a more severe offense than manslaughter. By the time you start kicking him in the head, you have had time to think about what you are doing. And you are making a decision at that point to continue with your violent attack.

Slighted of course is correct that different states define manslaughter differently. He is also correct that, in many states, manslaughter captures reckless homicides as well as EED homicides.

Do you really think people in the US "feel compelled" to do carjackings?

What do you think happened to the prison population between 1980 and 2020? You seem to be supporting my argument without realizing it. For 20 years we put a lot more people in jails and crime went down, and then when we started experimenting with criminal justice "reform" in the last 2 years, crime is going back up. This isn't that difficult.

But to answer your question, increasing policing in a vacuum has a very limited (but real) benefit. Having a more aggressive judicial system the same thing. Again, the solution is to have a society that isn't so criminal, not to reduce policing/justice in a very criminal society. European countries dont have small prison population because they ignore crime, they have them because there is much less crime.

Many more people in the US feel carjacking to be a rational decision given their environment than in most other countries. I don't really want to get into a semantic debate over the word "compel," so feel free to replace that word with one of your choice that conveys the same ethos.

What happens over 2 years is irrelevant. I was told my a number of euro people that they do not arrest you and send you to jail for most crimes. They probably commit the same amount of crimes but aren’t jailed for it.

I doubt they are making a "rational decision" to do so, and they likely wouldn't even claim to have made one.

What sorts of crimes are you referring to here? I'm not disputing that, but I have never heard it. Hopefully it's not for violent crimes.

Everything non violent. Drugs speeding fraud etc. ( I made up the fraud)

Folks are getting caught with 100 lbs of Fentanyl and getting no cash bail

What country are you talking about here? I was asking about what crimes are people not jailed for in Europe.

California police respond to a stabbing call. The suspect was tased without effect. So they shot and killed the suspect after resisting......a double amputee. Just save some time and give em all gestapo uniforms or at least the SS badges on their collars

https://news.yahoo.com/california-po...233840064.html

They must not be paid enough… we should increase what we pay cops so that we can get even better ones and this will stop happening! /s

10 rounds Jesus. Where was he going wtf

Given that it's now common knowledge that almost all cops are racist thugs, maybe brutally stabbing people will soon be thought of as a poor life choice.

Yeah and the girl who gets raped shouldn't have worn a mini skirt to the party. And we all know when the suspect ain't chill it's shoot to kill. Upon further reading, he lost his legs from an altercation with police in texas

And this guy shouldn't have been cleaning his grandma's home...poor life choice amirite?

https://nypost.com/2023/02/02/man-ki...s-home-family/

My brother is a retired cop. I saw over the years how the job changed his attitude towards people. And note this was decades ago, when it was extremely rare for any officer in his department to need to ever draw their weapon much less fire it. But I watched as his attitude went from a protect and serve the public mindset to a basically, unless proven otherwise most people are scumbags who dont deserve the benefit of the doubt. I talked to him about it. I think it is the result of day in and day out dealing with the least desirable elements of society, where essentially they are scumbags, seeking to do harm to others. So over time, when practically everyone you encounter is a bad guy, that can become your default setting for when you encounter people for the first time. I'm nit saying that justifies anything. It's just an observation.

He has mentioned two sayings that he was taught from the earliest days of his training that impact the use of force. The first is:

You have the right to come home to your family each night.

On one level that seems to make sense. But there is an undertone to that idea that is troublesome. It implies that when in doubt, shoot. So if you atent sure what a person has in his hand, or what he is reaching for in the glove box, assume its a gun and shoot. Because if you dont, you may not go home that night. But what is the flip side of that? Are we as a society really ok with giving a person with rather limited training the authority to kill anyone anytime the officer isnt sure of what they are doing? Is there no responsibility to make sure before you kill someone? Or is it simply OK to let them have the right to kill someone without consequence bc they thought a cell phone might have been a gun?

Then they had a second saying that addressed this very conflict, reinforcing the idea that it's better to kill someone by mistake than take any risk before deciding to shoot. This, imo, is what leads to so many quick shoots.

Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

Was he cleaning her basement with a knife? I couldn't find that part.

This is not quite honest. The dude is swinging a 9" blade and motioned several times to throw it. I'm not saying the shooting was justified as video doesn't tell the whole story in either direction, but dude already stabbed someone and it looks clear as day that if an officer tries to apprehend him he's going to use the knife.