Let me summarizes the entire article:
-
Ethical cops decrease crime. So less of them are needed.
-
Corrupt cops increase crime. So people think they need more cops. Which increases crime some more…etc…
Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy… or job security.
*fewer.
Thanks Stannis
deleted by creator
Fewer is less than more.
Edit: Lol at downvotes for an objectively true statement. I guess the literacy of this crowd is too low for linguistic humour.
Should have linked the dictionary, cause you wrong bro.
If self awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.
Fewer cops over is best case fewer corrupt cops, worst case, fewer ethical cops, or in all cases less cops. Sounds like a net win.
-
Instead of fighting to retain police officers who feel threatened by accountability and perpetuate that distrust, cities might consider just letting them leave.
Sounds good to me. Police who won’t respect the people they’re supposed to “protect and serve” have no business being police.
Nice work everyone, one more half to go
I can see how that would work in some places, but where I live, the opposite would happen. There actually is crime for them to police. Hell, with organized crime going up after California turned certain types of stealing from a Felony to a misdemeanor, theft and smash and grabs have skyrocketed in some places.
Plus, in the rural areas, Cartels are moving in and setting up illegal weed farms and such and threatening the local government and communities.
I’m not saying that the police aren’t a bunch of racist, sexist, militant fascists: they are. But if we could reform the police, they have a use protecting people from actual crime. The one benefit of having actual crime to police is that over the years, I’ve noticed much fewer cops harassing or ticketing normal people for stuff like minor traffic violations or “just because”. Probably because they actually (for once) have better things to do.
Hell, with organized crime going up after California turned certain types of stealing from a Felony to a misdemeanor, theft and smash and grabs have skyrocketed in some places.
Question: why are people stealing? Isn’t it because they need money, because they are poor? Maybe the solution is to make people less poor, rather than to have a bunch more “racist, sexist, militant fascists” patrolling the streets.
Cartels are moving in and setting up illegal weed farms
Again, the obvious solution to this problem does not involve police.
But if we could reform the police
I’m not sure we can.
deleted by creator
Yes. Literally. Look at city budgets in the United States. Police budgets are multiple times the amount spent on housing and social programs, which are things that actually reduce crime.
Move money out of police budgets and into housing in particular. Housing first. Because the increases in homelessness and crime are primarily being driven by the lack of affordable housing right now.
https://data.aclum.org/2023/04/05/fy2023-boston-police-department-budget/
If California has affordable housing that was accessible to everyone it wouldn’t have the ORT problem worse than the rest of the country.
deleted by creator
If people don’t have houses, it’s more difficult to get jobs. If people don’t have jobs, they need a different way to get food. It really is that simple. Unconditional housing makes people less likely to be poor and less likely to steal than if they didn’t have a safe place to live.
deleted by creator
“You think its easier to not have poor people than reform police? I dont think the first is feasible in a population this size. The latter is absolutely attainable with a dozen law changes to hold cops accountable, which will also mean less of them”
The person you asked that to didn’t claim that “it’s easier to not have poor people than reform police”. “Not having poor people” would require a complete restructuring of political and economic systems, while police reform would require fewer changes.
It is, however, easier to have fewer poor people, that are less poor, than it is to reform the police.
Step 1 is increase taxes on the rich.
Step 2 is use that money to buy and build houses.
Step 3 is give those houses to anyone that needs one.
So for your original question, no, I don’t think that.
Unironically yes
Cartels are moving in and setting up illegal weed farms and such and threatening the local government and communities.
Solution: Legalize drugs already.
And tax the fuckers
Weed’s legal in CA (don’t get me wrong, it should absolutely be legal federally. I actually fully expect Biden to campaign on it).
Any time there’s a highly regulated market, there’s going to be a black market. The best way to get rid of that is try to decrease the financial overhead said regulations create over time, lowering the incentive for people to buy off the black market. Obviously that’s not something that’s feasible to do overnight though.
Legalizing marijuana is far too progressive for a conservative like Biden.
They said they expect him to campaign on it, not “fix” it.
I don’t expect a thing. He only needs to be better than Trump, again. As an incumbent. Against a literal criminal who tried to overthrow the government.
Lowest bar in history, Jack.
I wish I had your confidence
It was intended as sardonic with overtones of bitter rage. I don’t actually know if the bar is low enough
He cares a lot more about winning the white house again than whether weed’s legal
Edit: sp
As if the president could waive a wand and make it legal. He pardoned everyone in federal prison on possession.
Caveat: there wasn’t actually anyone in prison on possession at the time. Which isn’t to say it didn’t send a message to supporters of the drug war.
As if that’d be the first time a candidate has campaigned on something they can’t actually do
The problem in my area is that the cops refuse to actually do anything. 20 or 20,000 makes no difference if they won’t actually do any policing.
Where I live, we didn’t lower criminal penalties for anything like that, smash and grab crimes are also up, and cops still don’t do anything about them. They also have stopped doing any traffic enforcement, and have basically been quiet quitting since there was unrest about how they shouldn’t commit extrajudicial violence.
The one thing they do still do, is hassle black men about weed, despite that actually being decriminalized in the city. Since they can still cite people under state law, they can ruin your whole day or weekend over a roach if they feel like it. Unsurprisingly, the statistics are literally 10 to 1 black to white people being cited for pot.
Just remove guns from the public like every other country. Easy win.
Ya let’s use our magic wand to do it too. Easy peasy!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If we remove all the police, there is will be no crime!
No, but maybe we need to rethink policing. Sure, nothing is perfect but we can get better if we took the time to get it right. It’s probably not that hard if we can admit we all kinda want the same things.
That’s not a conclusion supported by the facts here. What is supported by the facts is destroying the conventional wisdom that more cops means less crime.
Yes, and there is a difference between actual crime and observed/reported for statistics crime.
Nah, we’ll still have your crime against grammar.
That’s like saying there will be no arrests if crime is made legal. Unlawful arrest is also a crime, which would be legal.
Yes, without police there wouldn’t be crimes. Genius. /s
I have no idea what point you are trying to make
Shocked! /s
Ok, how about this: Would you please explain, in specific, non-sarcastic language, what you were trying to say?
I assume you were trying to make a point, but I guess it’s possible you were just typing random words.
I’m gonna leave here, so people can read what you wrote. Bye.
That ratio though
Ikr, internet points, I should circle jerk more, right?
There is no point to you, let alone what you’re saying. Time to exit the internet, dweeb
Removed by mod
pinkos
OK Boomer.
You know, you have a point. Not a single person on here likes the taste of the boot. So much for diversity, I guess.
