Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah but you better know what you’re doing. A nutjob on drugs can take it away from you and use it against you!
A nutjob on drugs can use anything against you. I think a hammer would give you some advantage, particularly if you carry it in a bag, and just swing the bag at the attacker (who literally would not know what had hit him, since he couldn't see the object in the bag. Hopefully the next thing is that he'd be unconscious - but in any case, he'd be at least very surprised, which may give you a chance to run away).
A nutjob on drugs can use anything against you. I think a hammer would give you some advantage, particularly if you carry it in a bag, and just swing the bag at the attacker (who literally would not know what had hit him, since he couldn't see the object in the bag. Hopefully the next thing is that he'd be unconscious - but in any case, he'd be at least very surprised, which may give you a chance to run away).
Interesting tactic! But as a 120 lbs 5'4 inch woman, I'd think twice before attacking any crazed out man. He can outrun me or take the bag away and use it against me or lord knows what his adrenaline could do to severely cause me harm. My tactic is the way of the cat: If you see something or someone crazy then run and hide for your life!
The cops wear bodycams, so who’s editing the videos that you’re talking about?
Regardless, your response does not answer my question of why would a cop care what happens to a person once they’ve arrested them.
I don't recall seeing that many publicly posted videos of alleged "police cruelty" that originated from police bodycams.
Again, cops are NOT ALLOWED to arrest for certain crimes any more. Regarding still allowed (but inconsequential) arrests for non-prosecutable crimes, why should cops (or anyone) be doing pointless tasks? The purpose of arresting a criminal is to have the criminal prosecuted - what other purpose would an arrest have? And if the arrest can lead only to release, why waste time (and even get into a potential danger) by arresting at all?
And I don’t think you know what prosecuted means. You’re confusing it for convicted.
It is not their job to arrest for crimes that are not prosecutable. It is certainly not their job to arrest when they are prohibited from arresting.
I am not confusing anything. DAs in certain jurisdictions have announced that they would no longer prosecute certain crimes. No, it is not the job of the police to arrest for such crimes. Additionally, DAs in certain jurisdictions have had a pattern of releasing criminals for alleged "lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute" even though there is what any normal person would consider a glaring evidence. After that happens a certain number of times, police will no longer arrest the same criminals for the same type of crimes with the same type of evidence - if they were let go for the same crime under the same circumstances in the past, what is the reason to arrest them again?
No, it is obviously not the job of the police to arrest for crimes that do not get prosecuted. There is no reason to arrest someone if he will not get prosecuted, either because DA announced that he would not prosecute that type of crime, or DA has an established pattern of not prosecuting that type of crime.
If it's still illegal then the cops still have to arrest
Doesn't matter if the DA finds that they can't pursue
They still have to arrest until the law is officially changed
If they're not going to do their job then why pay them
Sorry, bur that is the "logic" of futility that only a really stupid person can follow, someone without ability to think at all. Police are paid to control crime, not to go through empty motions which neither control crime, nor have any other effect or result.
If they actually controlled the amount of crime there would be none
Yes, they are paid to control crime, within legal limits. If they could shoot and kill every criminal on the spot, the crime would indeed be none, but that is not legally allowed. Of course, I am not advocating shooting all criminals on the spot for crime control, but (a) police has to be allowed to make arrests for all actual crime + (b) there have to be adequate punitive consequences after the arrest (ie, prosecuting all crimes, and high enough penalty for crime that would both remove any incentive for doing crime and remove still active criminals from the society).
Police ARE paid to control crime - that is the one and only thing they are paid for. But police alone cannot control crime - there has to be a legal system that removes criminals from the streets after they are arrested. In the absence of such a system, an arrest alone (followed by dropping charges and immediate release) surely cannot control crime - so why would police be expected (or paid for) to be making such futile busywork arrests?
Yes, they are paid to control crime, within legal limits. If they could shoot and kill every criminal on the spot, the crime would indeed be none, but that is not legally allowed. Of course, I am not advocating shooting all criminals on the spot for crime control, but (a) police has to be allowed to make arrests for all actual crime + (b) there have to be adequate punitive consequences after the arrest (ie, prosecuting all crimes, and high enough penalty for crime that would both remove any incentive for doing crime and remove still active criminals from the society).
Police ARE paid to control crime - that is the one and only thing they are paid for. But police alone cannot control crime - there has to be a legal system that removes criminals from the streets after they are arrested. In the absence of such a system, an arrest alone (followed by dropping charges and immediate release) surely cannot control crime - so why would police be expected (or paid for) to be making such futile busywork arrests?
What he's/she's using is the woke narrative. Anybody with an IQ above 80 can deduce that being more lenient with regards to criminality leads to more crime. So the woke create new policies that lead to more crime and when the populace gets irritated/starts pointing it out, they come up with a new narrative.
At first (early stages when the statistics still don't point to a trend) it was " pfft, this is right wing propoganda! Crime hasn't increased. Its just social media putting it in your face. This is just a scheme to reverse our "progressive" policies that bring about more "equity".
Then, when it becomes apparent that crime has indeed increased and it's hard to argue with hard data, the argument becomes
"We'll actually, there's more crime not because of our "progressive" reforms but because cops just don't want to do their job. If cops only did their jobs, we wouldn't have this uptick in crime. Cops don't like us holding them accountable for their "brutality" so they're basically on strike".
Soo (when they'll be thrown out of office), the argument will shift to "well yes, our "progressive" reforms that seek "equity" do lead to more crime but society isn't prepared to go through the pain of erasing "systemic racism" and bringing about more "equity". Society doesn't want to get rid of it's racism. Oh and by the way, there's a right wing conspiracy to have us fail!"
Find the causation of crime and then you’ll eradicate the crime completely. The police are not doing that because crime still exists.
If you say they are controlling the crime, then in fact that would mean they are allowing a certain volume of crime to occur - that actually makes more sense.
I thought I already replied to this but I don't see my reply now, not sure what happened, so I'll reply again. Sorry if it registers as two substantially equal posts
"Finding causation" of crime has become a code expression for finding excuses for crime, and I am not interested in excusing crime. Criminals are generally arrogant people who want power and control, but do not want to pursue socially acceptable and socially useful strategies for gaining their objective - that is what I think causes crime, and the famous rapper Ice T appears to agree with me (to cite him directly, from the statement he gave at Cal State Los Angeles academic panel discussion on violence in 2000 : "I'm a person who deals with violence always in my music. Masculinity runs this world. The person who's violent gets control. Peace gets nothing"). So there you have it: causality of crime stated by a definite expert :-).
Secondly, knowing causation of something does not equal eradicating it. We have known what causation of covid was since late 2019, the scientists even came up with a very effective vacine in record time, there has been mass vaccination in the Western world - yet covid has not been eradicated, and we still worry about behavior of the further mutations of the virus. So good luck with eradicating anything just by knowing its causation :-).
Police ALONE cannot control crime, I never said that. But they are paid for doing their half of the process of crime control. The increasing volume of crime is allowed to exist because the other half of the process of crime control (which kicks in after police makes an arrest) has been severely eroded, ie, there is inadequate prosecution and punishment for crime. Police is doing its part - but the legal system is not.
What he's/she's using is the woke narrative. Anybody with an IQ above 80 can deduce that being more lenient with regards to criminality leads to more crime. So the woke create new policies that lead to more crime and when the populace gets irritated/starts pointing it out, they come up with a new narrative.
Quite so, but not everyone has an IQ above 80 :-). Those incapable of critical thinking can only copy a narrative that someone feeds them (eg, copy it over and over, in multiple posts, like a broken record, as evidenced, eg, in this thread :-).
Lol, what about the existing volume of crime prior to bail reform? Why was that allowed to exist?
Why? Because the legal system had not been tough enough on crime even before the "reform". The volume of crime, predictably, increased further after the "reform".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
