patrick.net

indigenous says

As much as I hate to agree with Dan, he is right on this.

Dan is still wrong. Now that is just my opinion, but I think that boy drinks way too much left wing coolaid to understand anything.

Rew says

Strategist says

a known criminal, that cop is a hero in my eyes for getting a thug off the streets.

Wow. Care to define criminal more or does just any criminal deserve to die?

Someone like OJ who got away with murder. Rapists and child molesters. We can certainly do without them.

FortWayne says

Dan is still wrong. Now that is just my opinion, but I think that boy drinks way too much left wing coolaid to understand anything.

Not on this, government by definition uses force. That by definition is using coercion instead of reason, that is unacceptable

indigenous says

FortWayne says

Dan is still wrong. Now that is just my opinion, but I think that boy drinks way too much left wing coolaid to understand anything.

Not on this, government by definition uses force. That by definition is using coercion instead of reason, that is unacceptable

There are times when force is necessary. There are some people you cannot reason with.

Strategist says

There are times when force is necessary. There are some people you cannot reason with.

The original question I had was who decides what is a crime.At this time we have the government deciding what bathroom an individual uses, how much they are enslaved through taxes, how they can insure themselves for health, the minutiae of how they run there business, when they can defend themselves against the enemy, how they can travel, what their children will be taught, what drugs they will take both recreationaly and for health, what they will hear on the air waves through radio or television, not to mention the endless regulations regarding how you use your property, conduct your business, or conduct yourself, or go to war with.

What exactly are they supposed to be reasonable about?

indigenous says

Strategist says

There are times when force is necessary. There are some people you cannot reason with.

The original question I had was who decides what is a crime

In this context the question is......who is the threat? If you obey the cop, he is not a threat to your life. If your intent is to hurt the cop with a gun, you are the threat.

Strategist says

In this context

And look at the context and the trend of the past few decades...

Strategist says

Rapists and child molesters. We can certainly do without them.

I'm not sure that firt category even exists.

Hasn't rape been debunked?

NuttBoxer says

One line I do see repeated often by cops today is they shot because they felt threatened. This justification of their life over a citizens is used in cases where there was no threat, or they could have chosen to subdue the subject with minimal risk. The shift from protect and serve to bully and abuse has been going on for some time, but it has never been more pronounced than it is today.

The problem is police forces are becoming more military. Police are supposed to be basically social workers dealing with drunks and dysfunctional families most of the time, not special ops teams. Swat teams, military trainers, military equipment, military tactics, etc. are the norm now. I worked in a really tough jersey shore summer resort in the late 60's and early 70's. I knew most of the cops and saw lots of arrests. The cops didn't pull out their guns first thing, they waded in, arrested people and sometimes clunked a few heads together. If you watch old versions of cops from the late 80's the police were a lot less aggressive and less likely to confront people with guns. Starting in the 90's the military style of policing really took off. It's a lot more exciting and fun to be rambo than sheriff taylor mayberry rfd. Now the first thing that happens in far too many situations is guns come out first before it is even clear what is going on. Many states require a swat team for all felony arrests. A lot of these arrests used to be handled with a cop walking up and knocking on the door. It's hard to justify the increased aggression levels. It was much more dangerous to be a cop in the 70's than today. Yet another disastrous legacy of the war on drugs.

bob2356 says

The problem is police forces are becoming more military. Police are supposed to be basically social workers dealing with drunks and dysfunctional families most of the time, not special ops teams.

How else are the cops gonna deal with potential riots burning down large parts of a city? We had that happen in Ferguson and Los Angeles. Pussy cat cops are no match for hordes of rioters bent on destruction. A display of overwhelming force is the best deterrent we have.

bob2356 says

It was much more dangerous to be a cop in the 70's than today.

Excellent opining.

There are some facts in the article, but you want what you said to be true so it must be true...

The cop do seem to be more militaristic but the facts in the article don't bear that out.

But in general with continuing growth in government there will be more unrest from inequality, e.g. the false economy caused by the huge increase in the Fed balance sheet.

indigenous says

Excellent opining.

There are some facts in the article, but you want what you said to be true so it must be true...

Too lazy and/or stupid to type cop deaths per year into google? Here http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html.

The cop deaths per year today are almost half of the 1970's and there are a lot more cops today. Which means the rate of deaths, yes I know you can't understand rate, is much lower. You very are confused, I can always come up with hard numbers to support for what I say, you are the one who can never come up with anything to support what you say, except some fact free opinion piece from mises.org.

Strategist says

A display of overwhelming force is the best deterrent we have.

Good idea, can we send them all to your town? A better idea would be to use the national guard, who have the military equipment and training already for dealing with riots, then use the police for police work. What a concept.

bob2356 says

The cop deaths per year today are almost half of the 1970's and there are a lot more cops today. Which means the rate of deaths, yes I know you can't understand rate, is much lower. You very are confused, I can always come up with hard numbers to support for what I say, you are the one who can never come up with anything to support what you say, except some fact free opinion piece from mises.org.

Which is not my point, BTW your link is broken.

The point is read the article. In it they point out that the cops had a very workable policy in Compstat which was abandoned because of the back lives matter bullshit.

Good thread.

I was wondering why this particular category of white men was not responsible for their actions.

HydroCabron says

I was wondering

I doubt it

jazz music says

Isn't that what happens because we allow it to happen by staying uninvolved in government?

jazz music says

Notice that none of those preoccupations you mention affects the rate of wealth extraction from our society? --or into who's coffers that wealth insanely enriches

That has to do with this:

jazz music says

Horrific that you would post that particularly daft meme claiming control of our government not mattering.

So you are extolling the virtues of government?

Which part? The wars, the taxation, the regulation, the education, the laws?

jazz music says

A hard rain is surely going to fall on us cowards.

Splain your self?

Strategist says

How else are the cops gonna deal with potential riots burning down large parts of a city

Did you ever notice that when the police force is successful in quelling a riot the response from the rioters is "the police over-reacted".

P N Dr Lo R says

Strategist says

How else are the cops gonna deal with potential riots burning down large parts of a city

Did you ever notice that when the police force is successful in quelling a riot the response from the rioters is "the police over-reacted".

And when they don't succeed in quelling a riot, it's the cops fault like it was when LA was burning down.

jazz music says

A hard rain is surely going to fall on us cowards.

Oh God, Shakespeare is calling for overthrowing the government. Hey, you can do it peacefully in November, you know.

indigenous says

Splain your self?

He means a Hail Storm.

jazz music says

Oh you will extol government too once it is completely dismantled and split up like the proceeds of a heist between robbers of the donor class.

When you find your life rudely shortened and even rendered to your lords over mundane life necessities like food and health. When you abandoned those poor, unfortunate and needy you will realized that really abandoned yourself because you aren't really like one of the elites after all are you? You'll probably see this while the whip-crackers and enforcers are coming at you and yours with new fervor and even glee.

Beautiful, Shakespeare, beautiful. Perfect for a documentary on Venezuela.

jazz music says

Sorry to have to break this to you. You are not like the elites, you and yours will be crushed along with the rest. That is what tinkles down my friend.

That was very aesthetic or maybe anesthetic?

BTW not so honest Abe got 800,000 Americans killed with his Hamiltonian ideals, and practiced front running to line his own pocket at the taxpayers expense.

This is still accurate:

Ironman says

There's a reason the cops are stocking up on all this military hardware. If Bob would come out of the barn once a while to see what's really going on in the country, it would be very aware to him.

Yes there is a reason cops are stocking up, because the military is giving it away free. Feel free to tell us what's really going on in the country. That will be a joke coming from someone who can't figure out what is really going on in ocean county. I'll wait for you to answer, as in waiting forever as always.

jazz music says

Strategist says

Shakespeare is calling for overthrowing the government

Explain.

You explain. Exactly how do you propose to make changes that benefits society as a whole?

jazz music says

Strategist says

You explain. Exactly how do you propose to make changes that benefits society as a whole?

Lots of ways.

Go ahead I'm listening.

jazz music says

You proposed revolution.

Hell no. Democracies don't need revolutions. We can peacefully change our government every 2years.

jazz music says

You ignored the essence of my remark about Lincoln so I assume you have no idea what was meant. Abraham Lincoln said this:

And you ignored mine about what a fuck he was and as corrupt as they come.

Government is a thing that is used by people to follow there own interest, and since it has reached the tipping point all those who benefit from it's coercion will vote for it's metastasizing into more and more.

Will it change? Yes it will get worse and worse and towards the turn of the century it will implode as the Dollar will no longer be the reserve currency and it's people will not be productive. IOW Rome here he we come

He may have liked that. I don't think he's had one of those since georgies bit the dust.,..

turtledove says

When I was in Paris back in 2005, I was shocked to see their airport security. They had army looking guys with giant guns everywhere. This was post-9/11, so we had already had the TSA here in the US. Our TSA was nothing compared to the Gestapo feeling you had at CDG airport. Then, when I was boarding the plane, they were pulling people out of line and searching them right then and there. Dan would have had a stroke.

Ironman says

Thanks for proving my point, now back to the barn for you!

You haven't had a point in 40,000 comments. Other than your obsession with barns and farm animals in every post you make. Just because that kind of thing is the social norm for you and your family tree with no branches doesn't mean that the rest of us have any interest in hearing about it. But I can understand, since it's the only life you've known, that you don't know how to have any type of discussion with normal people without bringing it up.

Like I said I will be waiting for an answer to my question, which you are far too ignorant and uneducated to provide, forever. Thanks for proving my point.

Back to the original topic of police shooting people without cause or restraint, here's a gross example:
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/young-widow-demanding-justice-cop-145625769.html

indigenous says

Which is not my point, BTW your link is broken.

The point is read the article. In it they point out that the cops had a very workable policy in Compstat which was abandoned because of the back lives matter bullshit.

The article didn't say anything about compstat being abandoned. The article offered the OPINION that the cause of the increase in violence in SOME cities is that cops are backing off enforcing because they are concerned about hostility. It is a conjecture, not a fact.

Yet your article very much cherry picks and makes no secret of heavy bias. It totally ignores the cities where crime and violence went down in 2015. It totally ignores that crime and violence for the entire country went down in 2015. Compstat itself is pretty controversial. Read the recently released audit of the use of compstat in NYC. Lots of data manipulation going on. Grand larcenies become larcenies, regular larcenies become unreported, etc., etc.. Cities that didn't use compstat had the same crime decreases as cities that did the last 20 years. There was a general decrease in crime and violence nationwide. How did that happen?

It's worth noting that the violence increase is in the cities that were most aggressive with things like compstat, stop and frisk, broken windows, military training. Why would that be? Lack of trust in the police forces using confrontational tactics maybe? Why aren't police in cities with crime decreases backing off also? Why are they not afraid of the "fergason effect"? Also the increase is mostly in what is called hyper segregated cities. Why would that be?

Compstat is a tool, nothing else. It can help. It can make things worse if used poorly or to implement an agenda. Effective leadership of the police force is the key to control crime, not the tools used.

Like everything else, you have found someone who's opinion agrees with what you want to believe and think you have found the answers to the secrets of the universe. There is a lot more complexity than pointing your finger and saying see there's the reason.

bob2356 says

It's worth noting that the violence increase is in the cities that were most aggressive with things like compstat, stop and frisk, broken windows, military training.

And yet it was stop and frisk and broken windows that was most effective in bringing the mayhem of New York City in the 70's and 80's under control by the 90's, but now those have been abandoned. What's wrong with broken windows thinking, do you just let a neighborhood go to hell? The point is the impulses are there all along, they were just brought to heel for a time.

bob2356 says

The article offered the OPINION that the cause of the increase in violence in SOME cities is that cops are backing off enforcing because they are concerned about hostility. It is a conjecture, not a fact.

"As a result of the anti-cop campaign of the last two years and the resulting push-back in the streets, officers in urban areas are cutting back on precisely the kind of policing that led to the crime decline of the 1990s and 2000s. Arrests and summons are down, particularly for low-level offenses. Police officers continue to rush to 911 calls when there is already a victim. But when it comes to making discretionary stops—such as getting out of their cars and questioning people hanging out on drug corners at 1:00 a.m.—many cops worry that doing so could put their careers on the line. Police officers are, after all, human. When they are repeatedly called racist for stopping and questioning suspicious individuals in high-crime areas, they will perform less of those stops. That is not only understandable—in a sense, it is how things should work. Policing is political. If a powerful political block has denied the legitimacy of assertive policing, we will get less of it."

Oh ok reason enough to dismiss the article, clearly you know more than they do...

I will add my anecdotal experience. My business was broken into a while back. It was one in a string of robberies of similiar type businesses. By using a computer model the police were able to predict the most likely next target and staked out that business and nailed the thieves red handed. Needless to say I like the idea of using data to manage crime.

bob2356 says

Yet your article very much cherry picks and makes no secret of heavy bias. It totally ignores the cities where crime and violence went down in 2015. It totally ignores that crime and violence for the entire country went down in 2015. Compstat itself is pretty controversial. Read the recently released audit of the use of compstat in NYC. Lots of data manipulation going on. Grand larcenies become larcenies, regular larcenies become unreported, etc., etc.. Cities that didn't use compstat had the same crime decreases as cities that did the last 20 years. There was a general decrease in crime and violence nationwide. How did that happen?

The biggest downside of using statistics to manage is bogus reporting, (the old lies, damn lies, and statistics trope) the upside is that it takes much of the politics and BS out of the evaluation. The good far out weighs the bad on this. Ideally it would be like baseball where every thing is statisticized honestly. But to think it is perfect is naive.

Was this a bogus statistic as well?

"In New York City in 1990, for example, there were 2,245 homicides. In 2014 there were 333—a decrease of 85 percent. The drop in New York’s crime rate 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 these declining rates have been minorities. "

bob2356 says

It's worth noting that the violence increase is in the cities that were most aggressive with things like compstat, stop and frisk, broken windows, military training. Why would that be?

Don't know but broken windows is an irrefutable success.

bob2356 says

Compstat is a tool, nothing else. It can help. It can make things worse if used poorly or to implement an agenda. Effective leadership of the police force is the key to control crime, not the tools used.

And good leadership uses data to make decisions. Otherwise it is just politics as usual, you don't have to look any further than the beltway to see what a joke that is.

bob2356 says

Like everything else, you have found someone who's opinion agrees with what you want to believe and think you have found the answers to the secrets of the universe. There is a lot more complexity than pointing your finger and saying see there's the reason.

Another case of projecting, blah blah blah

I will say that one of the biggest factors that goes unreported is demographics. People don't commit as much crime when they get older. Which makes me wonder about the huge increase in 20 somethings in near future.

It seems to me it's often a simple incompetence issue of one kind or another. The people becoming police are not the people who should be.

Yes, once an incident happens there's the fraternal police behavior of defending each other, which aggravates the problem. But the real problem is training and even how they hire in the first place. I'm guessing too often they don't have procedures for determining whether a person is qualified to make those kind of decisions under pressure.

I'm not saying this is easy. But somehow too many people are getting through to those jobs that are maybe fine in day to day police work, but can't handle the more intense situations that come up. IT's supposed to be a slightly more risky work than other jobs. That's why they get a full pension after only working 30 years. But if they are going to shoot someone every time they see a .00001% chance of harm to themselves in a situation, then they are too big of a pussy for that kind of work.

New comment by marcus in Why do cops shoot first in the US? Is it fear of a breakdown of social order?:
"It seems to me it's often a simple incompetence issue of one kind or another. The people becoming police are not the people who should be.

Yes, once an incident happens there's the fraternal police behavior of defending each other, which aggravates the problem. But the real problem is training and even how they hire in the first place. I'm guessing too often they don't have procedures for determining whether a person is qualified to make those kind of decisions under pressure.

I'm not saying this is easy. But somehow too many people are getting through to those jobs that are maybe fine in day to day police work, but can't handle the more intense situations that come up."

I wonder if they could use that in the schools?

marcus says

It seems to me it's often a simple incompetence issue of one kind or another. The people becoming police are not the people who should be.

How do you know? You are ignoring the countless incidents where no one got hurt. The real problem is the media that turns a shooting incident into some kind of a national disaster.

Strategist says

How do you know? You are ignoring the countless incidents where no one got hurt.

I should have said (meant to say) some of the people, or too many of the people becoming police are not the people that should be. The point being that given the fact that it's a good paying job with good benefits, there should be aptitude tests before hiring (not that it's easy to test how people perform under life threatening pressure), and far better training.

The cost of training would be far less than the cost of reputation lost and law suits payed out to families of murdered civilians.

Strategist says

The real problem is the media that turns a shooting incident into some kind of a national disaster.

It's actually an example of the media still functioning as it should, probably because social media makes it harder for these murders to remain hidden.

P N Dr Lo R says

bob2356 says

It's worth noting that the violence increase is in the cities that were most aggressive with things like compstat, stop and frisk, broken windows, military training.

And yet it was stop and frisk and broken windows that was most effective in bringing the mayhem of New York City in the 70's and 80's under control by the 90's, but now those have been abandoned. What's wrong with broken windows thinking, do you just let a neighborhood go to hell? The point is the impulses are there all along, they were just brought to heel for a time.

That is an amazing fact, especially since Bratton didn't become police chief until 1995 or so and started the broken windows program after that. Nothing wrong with broken windows. If cops see something going on and stop it then it's a good idea. If it becomes harassing people and causing resentment then it's a bad idea.

I notice you say nothing about the huge expansion of the NYC police force under bratton paid for by clinton's community policing program. Don't you think that has any relevance at all?

indigenous says

As a result of the anti-cop campaign of the last two years and the resulting push-back in the streets, officers in urban areas are cutting back on precisely the kind of policing that led to the crime decline of the 1990s and 2000s. Arrests and summons are down, particularly for low-level offenses

indigenous says

Oh ok reason enough to dismiss the article, clearly you know more than they do...

I know there is nothing there to back up her assertion other than I say so. Your favourite kind of article. Arrests and summons are down. Really? Down how much? What urban areas? Compared to what? Compared to where? Over what time frame?

If you want to actually learn something, as opposed to looking for someone who's opinion backs up your opinion, read NYU law school research into crime reduction. released last year. https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline
Sorry but it's not a video, you actually have to read it and it's long. Page 77 (page 83 on a my pdf viewer) has NYC statistics. Note the pre comstat trends, post comstat trends, and number of police pre and post comstat. Yes I do think I know more than your article does, since the article doesn’t offer anything other than it's true because I say so, just like you.

indigenous says

Was this a bogus statistic as well?

"In New York City in 1990, for example, there were 2,245 homicides. In 2014 there were 333—a decrease of 85 percent. The drop in New York’s crime rate 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 these declining rates have been minorities. "

Absolutely bogus. Proving once again you don't know what statistics are or how they are used. Why start at 1990? Compstat didn't get fully up and running in NYC until 1995-1996 (NYC is very fuzzy about when it was actually fully in place and operational). What about the sharp decline between 1990 and 1996. Why not start at 1996 or whenever compstat was fully in place and operational? Why not compare the rate of decline pre compstat to post compstat? Sorry I forgot you don't understand rates. Crime fell at a historic rate nationwide, including cites not using compstat at all. What does that say? Do you ever think about what you read?

indigenous says

I will say that one of the biggest factors that goes unreported is demographics. People don't commit as much crime when they get older. Which makes me wonder about the huge increase in 20 somethings in near future.

Look in the brennan report and you will find that demographics had very little to do with the drop in crime. Which surprised me a lot. "I will say"???, yep that says it all. Nothing like in depth research.

indigenous says

I will add my anecdotal experience. My business was broken into a while back. It was one in a string of robberies of similiar type businesses. By using a computer model the police were able to predict the most likely next target and staked out that business and nailed the thieves red handed. Needless to say I like the idea of using data to manage crime.

Nothing at all wrong with using data to manage crime. It's a good idea. But it's only a small part of a much larger picture. at most 5-15% of the overall crime reduction the last 20 years in the cities that used it. It's not like some kind of magic.

Bottom line your absurd statement "the cops had a very workable policy in Compstat which was abandoned because of the back lives matter bullshit." remains just that. Absurd.

Strategist says

How else are the cops gonna deal with potential riots burning down large parts of a city? We had that happen in Ferguson and Los Angeles. Pussy cat cops are no match for hordes of rioters bent on destruction. A display of overwhelming force is the best deterrent we have.

Are you high? After the King verdict I didn't see cop one in South Central, but I did see Korean's blasting looters from their store roofs. It's kind of the point of this thread that police will almost never put themselves in harms way. They'll wait for the national guard(again see King riots), before they set foot in any riot area.