The Incompetence of Tulsa City Government (Howe, Okay: tax, live, safety)

[TulsaArtist]

To some extent I do believe that having more police would help decrease crime levels. But only fractionally. I think that the reason we have such high crime levels is because of other conditons in our society. Oklahomans have higher than average rates of: child abuse and neglect, divorce, alchohol abuse (on top of some of the most restrictive laws in the country?), drug abuse, tobacco use, obesity, homicide, suicide, poor health on many levels, etc. etc. Having more police could not put much of a dent, if any, in most of those stats. We cant have police in every home, we cant have enough police to monitor every block.

I find it fascinating when a homicide occurs in a home or on a street and people then say there werent enough police. The police cant be on every block. What would more police be able to do in such a situation? If we had 4 policemen patrolling every square mile of the city day and night, whatever street the policeman was on, the next couple blocks over is where the crime would occur. If someone is going to kill someone in their home, having the police right outside the door couldnt stop them. If someone is going to do a "drive by", having the police a half mile over wouldnt stop them. And there is no way we could have that many police anyway.

We already lock up more people than average. If the theory was that "if there were more police, they could then catch and lock up more people",,,, well we already catch and lock up more people, even with less police!? Isnt that a signal that its not the lack of police, its a lack elsewhere? Just how many people would we have catch and lock up? Yes there are often people who commit lots of crimes and the need to be locked up, but even here, we are locking them up more than average, and its not the police who let those career criminals cycle in and out of the system.

Do Canadian cities really have that many more police per sq mile or population and thats why they have such low crime levels? European cities as well?


Tulsa pop,,,385,000 homicides as of 26th Sept== 47
Toronto pop,,, 2,505,000 homicides as of 31st Oct== 44
Vancouver pop,,,580,000 as of 30 sept=== 18
Montreal pop,,,1,855,000 as of 26th Augh=== 23
Copenhagen pop,,,1,170,000 as of 4 Aug=== 6

Portland and Seattle 14 each as of Oct...how many police per sq mile or per pop do they have?

[Jammie]

Artist, you bring up a good point. Tulsa really isn't out of line though for many other cities in the U.S. that are the same size. But evidently, from the cities you listed, crime is high in our country.

Just curious though~why is the crime rate high considering that it is quite a religious community? Also, don't you think that a strong police force is a deterent for crime outside the home?

[Fenderman]

Originally Posted by Jammie

Artist, you bring up a good point. Tulsa really isn't out of line though for many other cities in the U.S. that are the same size. But evidently, from the cities you listed, crime is high in our country.

Just curious though~why is the crime rate high considering that it is quite a religious community? Also, don't you think that a strong police force is a deterent for crime outside the home?

You hit the nail right on the head.Tulsa is a "religious" community.

My whole intent of this thread was to point out that local city did not plan, budget,or spend funds properly to maintain an ADEQUATE SIZE AND EQUIPPED POLICE FORCE to properly serve the citizens of Tulsa.
I used Albuquerque as a comparison because that was the closest in size that I could find to Tulsa that was in the SW region.

[Fenderman]

Originally Posted by TulsaArtist

To some extent I do believe that having more police would help decrease crime levels. But only fractionally. I think that the reason we have such high crime levels is because of other conditons in our society. Oklahomans have higher than average rates of: child abuse and neglect, divorce, alchohol abuse (on top of some of the most restrictive laws in the country?), drug abuse, tobacco use, obesity, homicide, suicide, poor health on many levels, etc. etc. Having more police could not put much of a dent, if any, in most of those stats. We cant have police in every home, we cant have enough police to monitor every block.

I find it fascinating when a homicide occurs in a home or on a street and people then say there werent enough police. The police cant be on every block. What would more police be able to do in such a situation? If we had 4 policemen patrolling every square mile of the city day and night, whatever street the policeman was on, the next couple blocks over is where the crime would occur. If someone is going to kill someone in their home, having the police right outside the door couldnt stop them. If someone is going to do a "drive by", having the police a half mile over wouldnt stop them. And there is no way we could have that many police anyway.

We already lock up more people than average. If the theory was that "if there were more police, they could then catch and lock up more people",,,, well we already catch and lock up more people, even with less police!? Isnt that a signal that its not the lack of police, its a lack elsewhere? Just how many people would we have catch and lock up? Yes there are often people who commit lots of crimes and the need to be locked up, but even here, we are locking them up more than average, and its not the police who let those career criminals cycle in and out of the system.

Do Canadian cities really have that many more police per sq mile or population and thats why they have such low crime levels? European cities as well?


Tulsa pop,,,385,000 homicides as of 26th Sept== 47
Toronto pop,,, 2,505,000 homicides as of 31st Oct== 44
Vancouver pop,,,580,000 as of 30 sept=== 18
Montreal pop,,,1,855,000 as of 26th Augh=== 23
Copenhagen pop,,,1,170,000 as of 4 Aug=== 6

Portland and Seattle 14 each as of Oct...how many police per sq mile or per pop do they have?

More police officers will only decrease crime levels "fractionally" [your statement]
Decreasing the size of the Police Force will only "fractionally" increase the crime levels.[my statement using your logic]
If the size of the Tulsa Police Force is NO BIG DEAL and a MAJOR ISSUE facing this city then why not take ALL OFFICERS off the streets. See how well that works out for you.

[TulsaArtist]

Originally Posted by Jammie

Artist, you bring up a good point. Tulsa really isn't out of line though for many other cities in the U.S. that are the same size. But evidently, from the cities you listed, crime is high in our country.

Just curious though~why is the crime rate high considering that it is quite a religious community? Also, don't you think that a strong police force is a deterent for crime outside the home?

A deterrent of sorts yes, but I don't see how it would be much of a deterrent. Soon as the cop is out of sight, reality slips back in. Watch traffic speeds when a cop appears then is out of sight lol. Just this morning watched as someone in the the car in front of me threw a piece of trash out the window,,, at the intersection to the right was a cop car. Even if the presence of the cop had stopped the person from throwing out the trash at that intersection, they likely would have thrown it out at another time when there wasnt a cop around to be seen. If someone is so inclined to commit a crime, it would take a cop on every corner and severe punishments to really deter them from doing so. Cops can "nibble at the edges" and are important for when things get terribly out of hand, but in general they cant change the society that is or is not producing crime. The Best Buy was robbed at night over by my house a while back, (I believe they came in through the roof if I remember the story correctly) there very well could have been a cop not far away. Someone shot a bb at a friends car window while it was in his driveway and it shattered the window. A cop could have driven down the street only moments before and after. We couldnt have enough police to have one on every street and every corner watching day and night.

To me it depends on the direction we want to take, where we want to spend our money, time and effort, build institutions, habits, societal norms, etc. Either by focusing on creating a society that doesnt commit as many crimes in the first place, or having a society that is likely to commit crime but then focusing (time and money etc.) on trying to limit crime or its impacts by threatening to punish and or catch the criminals.


Its also interesting to note that in those areas where people "commit the most crimes against themselves" high tobacco usage, obesity, etc. they have high crime rates in general. Makes sense, for one might expect that people who hurt, even kill, themselves might not have the best; attitudes, norms, thoughts, habits, etc. in general. (we know the correlates for such situationsoverty, low educational attainment, poor societal expectations,etc.) Or it could very well be just the opposite. People who mistreat others, one might expect that in general you would find they are the same with themselves. Bad, and good, thoughts and habits flow both ways. The people may be trying to do their best, but what you have is bad solutions created by a bad society, a bad society creating and pushing bad solutions (or underfunding/poor execution of the good solutions while focusing ,or not, on the bad ones).

Why is it that some places have such radically different crime and homicide rates? Is it because of lack of or an abundance of police? There may be examples of police states with lots of police and severe punishments where certain crimes are low, but is that a direction we want to continue pursuing? There may also be situations where that is the immediate, short term, solution, but is this one? And would we then risk relying on that solution in the long term and think that more of the same will be better, and so on while we continue to ignore the underlying problems or even getting to the point where so much of our resources are focused in that area that we then find it incredibly expensive and difficult to put any resources into other means?

[Bill236c]

Don't you think that most crime is tied to the high cost of maintaining drug addictions and gang turf? If we could decriminalize drug use and possession, drugs would be less expensive and prisons and jails wouldn't be crowded with non-violent offenders. It would eliminate the huge profit motivation for drug dealing. Remember the gangster era during the years of alcohol prohibition?

[Jammie]

Very interesting perspectives. I still don't understand why there is such a high crime rate since it is a religious community. Sounds like something is lacking. I wonder if the crimes are committed mainly by natives or transplants, gangs or non-gang members, etc. It'd be interesting to see stats on that.

I'm not so much referring to the people who are obese or smoke or drink because none of that is a crime and many who fall into that category have never commited a violent crime.

To me, the scariest crimes~the ones that should be wiped out as much as possible~are the drive-by shootings or the armed robberies, violent crimes that cause harm to others.

How is the prosecution and sentencing end of it going? Is there too much leniency?

Bill, I see your point. I'm not sure about other drugs, but I've often wondered why marijuana was illegal. The effects of it are not any worse then alcohol and that's legal.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Jammie

Very interesting perspectives. I still don't understand why there is such a high crime rate since it is a religious community. Sounds like something is lacking. I wonder if the crimes are committed mainly by natives or transplants, gangs or non-gang members, etc. It'd be interesting to see stats on that.

I'm not so much referring to the people who are obese or smoke or drink because none of that is a crime and many who fall into that category have never commited a violent crime.

To me, the scariest crimes~the ones that should be wiped out as much as possible~are the drive-by shootings or the armed robberies, violent crimes that cause harm to others.

How is the prosecution and sentencing end of it going? Is there too much leniency?

Bill, I see your point. I'm not sure about other drugs, but I've often wondered why marijuana was illegal. The effects of it are not any worse then alcohol and that's legal.

So I see that someone else besides me have wondered why the MORE
Religious southern states tend to have MORE crime. The southern states
were the states that supported slavery , when the less religious states
The Northern States campaigned against it, just because you are a
Christian don't mean that you are Jesus Christ "LIKE"....

I don't think that transplants are the cause of the problem , because
there isn't a great wave of transplants invading the borders of OKLA.
My honest opinion is that the HOME GROWED population are the real
problem behind the increase in crime , and that it' just the human
nature of people from the south.

When touching the subject of illegalizing Mary Jane and how Mary Jane
stack up against Alcohol , well my opinion is that alcohol is more
dangerous than mary jane any old day. My opinion on Mary Jane
becoming legal ? not in 10 years at the very least.

I was informed that my spelling and grammar wasn't up to stuff , I
already knew that , so please forgive the error's

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Fenderman

You hit the nail right on the head.Tulsa is a "religious" community.

My whole intent of this thread was to point out that local city did not plan, budget,or spend funds properly to maintain an ADEQUATE SIZE AND EQUIPPED POLICE FORCE to properly serve the citizens of Tulsa.
I used Albuquerque as a comparison because that was the closest in size that I could find to Tulsa that was in the SW region.

Tucson Arizona is really the only city in the southwest that's
anywhere close to the size of Tulsa , because Albuquerque
NM is 125,000 citizens larger than Tulsa....

Albuquerque, New Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jammie]

Howest, your grammar is fine so no worries. I can understand everything that you said. It just makes some people feel better about themselves if they can pick someone else apart and we won't play into that game.

Yes, I like the way you worded that. OK is supposed to be very conservative and religious so the high crime rates just confuse me. I actually come from a very religious state, too. According to stats, moreso here then down there. I believe it's something like 82% of my city is religious and it's probably about 60% for Tulsa. My state isn't quite as red as OK is though. We're getting some bluish tints up here. I still prefer a more moderate population. Totally red can be too closed-minded and stuffy, if you know what I mean. Of course, we wouldn't fit into an all blue area either cause it'd just be "too far out there." So actually, religous areas aren't really confined to the more southern states. I'm starting to believe that's a misconception and it's probably because of the Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists. Maybe the perception is that they're more religious??? I dunno....

Crime rates~I know there are many northern cities that struggle with crime, but many areas of the North are very safe. My area is included in safety. Still, it seems that crime rates are surprisingly high in so much of the South. Is it just from growing up in the area and feeling it's normal or acceptable?

Tulsa's crime rate still confuses me. I still consider Tulsa to have quite a Midwestern feel to it. The further south we went~yup, more of a Southern feel. Guess I'm just curious as to why there is so much crime, what are the stats on the people committing it, etc. If you ever find any data, please share it with us.

As far as wanting slavery, I have done a bit of research on that and even though the slave-owners wanted it, MANY of the other people in the South felt it was wrong. Those people were well ahead of their time in their thinking. That situation was only for personal gain and it was ignorant.

Just a few new things I've learned about this subject~Did you realize that West Virginia was actually created because they wanted no part of slavery? Eastern Tn. also had Union sentiments and were anti-slavery. OK itself was torn even though it was Indian Territory at the time. Tribes split up and some headed into Kansas. The govt. definitely treated them like dirt so others hoped that they'd have better luck with the Confederacy. Unfortunately, they were used again and some were enslaved and forced to go into battle. They were treated like dirt from both sides and had foodless winters.

Many states that are included as being part of the Confederacy and pro-slavery, actually had many citizens who were against it. That's why I chuckle when I read some posts in "other controversies" about how the Civil War would play out now. It confuses me that anyone would even be interested in all that bloodshed again and I think many have a lot of misconceptions. I doubt many transplants would be interested in waging war against their home state. It's just such a bad time for our country and it blows me away about how much that topic has been discussed on CD expecially since it happened so long ago. The comments about it not being about slavery and being about "state's rights" gives me another chuckle. Of course it was about "state's rights" so they could decide if they wanted to keep slavery legal. Just all very sad and barbaric IMHO.

Anyway, if you ever find any stats on the crime rates, I'd be very interested.