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.
No sheet Sherlock. Highly impoverished neighborhoods simply do not have the money to provide their own protection.
Again, where is the money coming from for the poorest neighborhoods?
Poor neighborhoods already pay for police protection. They just don't get a choice what police they get. But if they can afford police now, if they were able to opt out of the public police service, they would have money to hire their own.
Police brutality is never OK, but let's not pretend all police officers are bad.
Police brutality happens way too much, and many citizens are too apathetic about it. And they're apathetic because the issue is racialized. If it weren't and all police shootings (and police getting away with it) were treated for what they were (f'ed up court system, police being above the law) you'd see more outrage. The US Government does not want the American public to see police brutality as a legitimate issue. That is why it's being treated like a racial issue always.
The guy in Minesota is a case that should have NEVER made it mainstream. He was an innocent guy, with a open carry permit, and he was killed. He didn't fit the narrative of being a thug, with a criminal record, so they can't get people to hate him from that standpoint.
It is my firm opinion that the USA IS going to become a police state. And the population was united against police abuse across racial lines, it would make it impossible to create a police state. This is why the whole police issue is racialize so people can tolerate police murdering people.
Police brutality happens way too much, and many citizens are too apathetic about it. And they're apathetic because the issue is racialized. If it weren't and all police shootings (and police getting away with it) were treated for what they were (f'ed up court system, police being above the law) you'd see more outrage. The US Government does not want the American public to see police brutality as a legitimate issue. That is why it's being treated like a racial issue always.
The guy in Minesota is a case that should have NEVER made it mainstream. He was an innocent guy, with a open carry permit, and he was killed. He didn't fit the narrative of being a thug, with a criminal record, so they can't get people to hate him from that standpoint.
It is my firm opinion that the USA IS going to become a police state. And the population was united against police abuse across racial lines, it would make it impossible to create a police state. This is why the whole police issue is racialize so people can tolerate police murdering people.
I agree with you.
But if you want to be taken seriously, maybe you should try a different approach.
You can mostly identify scumbags by their antipathy for the police.
Such an attitude is fundamentally pathological as far as civilization and its fight with chaos is concerned.
High crime areas are not high crime because of "police neglect". They are high crime because the people who live there have a higher than average number of criminals living among them. Usually, this only works if the culture incubates, coddles, and rewards criminality.
There are plenty of low crime areas with a low police presence in this nation.
Police are only human and only have so many resources at their disposal. Them not investigating petty crime is a matter of resources in areas that demand more of them, because of their culture of criminality, while paying them less. In short, the job of cops is not to make up the cultural slack for areas that are so degenerate that their culture breeds and fails to stop criminality above what is normal for a human community.
The OP's broad-brushing of cops as narcotic thieves is silly and illustrates his or her general dellusion.
I live in a high crime area.
It never used to be high crime until a certain contingent moved in. Now it is. The police are the same, and the higher crime is not their fault but the fault of the new populace. That's an undeniable fact.
I have noticed the huge difference between police defenders, and people like me who despise the idea of the government having a monopoly on authority and violence.
I have actually lived in the projects, was raised them back in the 80s. I have seen first hand how much of a failure the police are. And today in high crime areas, you can almost always link it to police neglect. Police don't actually stop criminals. What happens when a criminal robs you home, and you live in the projects? They tell you to file a police report, it goes into some file, never to be looked at again. What happens when you get robbed? Police will blame you and say "well you shouldn't have been walking around this area at night".
Growing up it was always a given that police sucked. When I worked for the government, and worked closely with the police, I saw the same ol stuff. Police basically protecting the rich, and crapping on the poor. Tons of police response in low crime neighborhoods, but almost zero in high crime neighborhoods.
Police generate revenue for the city or state. And you really don't make the city or state any money when you waste your time going after gang members. If you don't have any drugs you can steal from people in the community, then they're not even worth your time trying to pursue. And that's the real police for you. Police don't care about stopping crime. They just care about stealing drugs from people, blaming victims of crime, and bullying people "just to look busy".
So I'll issue you a challenge. Why don't you actually take some money, rent a spot in a low income, high crime neighborhood. And then evaluate how "great" of a job police are doing. You game?
I grew up in the hood and currently live on the block where the protests in St Paul, Mn are starting each day (i.e. low income). I find it's the opposite actually. It's the "police are all racist killers" Whites that tend to not live in the inner city. They drive in for the protests. Of course they don't need police protection or understand what's going on in the inner city because they live in ivory towers in the suburbs, in the Whitest, most segregated neighborhoods in the city or on college campuses.
I have no problem with profiling. 12 Whites guys playing volleyball at the lake at 3pm is not the same as 12 Black guys hanging around in a park at 3am in a high crime, gang neighborhood. The cops aren't randomly stopping 50 y/o Black ladies dressed in scrubs on their way to their jobs at the hospital at 7am out in the suburbs. Profiling is very specific & the reason to profile is valid.
For those who want an end to profiling, I ask, do you A) Want the cops to step up their stops, searches & arrests of Whites so that it's more equal or B) To end traffic stops, searches & arrests for Blacks to make it more equal? No one has ever given me a straight answer on this question, so I look forward to the responses.
You didn't think this through and you made things up. It's not business as usual.
Of course privatization means we can get rid of them. If they don't do their job we fire them. That is something we cannot do now because the system is rigged.
We the people are in charge not government. We are the bosses. We make the rules. Rules like don't arrest anyone for a minor drug offense. Make traffic fines lower. Make it about community policing instead of taking our money.
That is true if you are talking about having a private security working for you, which is what the OP is talking about.
A town hiring a private police force is going to sign a contract with said force and they will want to work for profit. Profit is what is called the bottom line for any private business. The bottom line has nothing to do with the well being of the people in the community.
Just reforming and demilitarizing the police would make more sense than shooting ourselves in the foot by privatizing the police.
OMG! Can you just imagine if you actually thought this through logically. LMAO!!
Less people would be in jail and minor offenses, where there is no victim, means no jail time. We set the rules, it's not business as usual.
I say this to you, "Can you just imagine if you actually thought this through logically."
"Make traffic fines lower"
They should make traffic fines HIGHER.
Low fine do NOT discourage people from breaking them.
HIGH fines DISCOURAGE breaking them.
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.
