They did in Jersey:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Camden+ ... e&ie=UTF-8
And it worked!
Define worked.....read the whole story. They damned near doubled the amount of police, only dropped 9 spots from 1 to 10th as worst crime city in America. And total citizens dropped by ~7k, less section 8 housing, and moreBrooklyn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:17 am
They did in Jersey:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Camden+ ... e&ie=UTF-8
And it worked!
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:34 pm
Define worked.....read the whole story. They damned near doubled the amount of police, only dropped 9 spots from 1 to 10th as worst crime city in America. And total citizens dropped by ~7k, less section 8 housing, and more
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-6%3famp
Only Brooklyn logic would recommend a new and improved police force that still beats people as a success. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKef9hgOFio
Crime didn’t go up so....a slight decline in crime and police are accountable to the people they serve and are not above the law and it’s less money..... sounds like a win. Good conservative policy.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:50 pmyouthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:34 pm
Define worked.....read the whole story. They damned near doubled the amount of police, only dropped 9 spots from 1 to 10th as worst crime city in America. And total citizens dropped by ~7k, less section 8 housing, and more
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-6%3famp
Only Brooklyn logic would recommend a new and improved police force that still beats people as a success. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKef9hgOFio
You likely missed the point of it all - the old guard (if you can call it that) was nuked. A new guard, one that is accountable to the public, was brought in. Made all the difference. This is not to say they are perfect but they did make an improvement. I would go a few steps further as in the changes I've already written about.
Would love to see the ledger sheet. Hard to fathom how costs went down when the amount of police almost doubled.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:56 pmCrime didn’t go up so....a slight decline in crime and police are accountable to the people they serve and are not above the law and it’s less money..... sounds like a win. Good conservative policy.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:50 pmyouthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:34 pm
Define worked.....read the whole story. They damned near doubled the amount of police, only dropped 9 spots from 1 to 10th as worst crime city in America. And total citizens dropped by ~7k, less section 8 housing, and more
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-6%3famp
Only Brooklyn logic would recommend a new and improved police force that still beats people as a success. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKef9hgOFio
You likely missed the point of it all - the old guard (if you can call it that) was nuked. A new guard, one that is accountable to the public, was brought in. Made all the difference. This is not to say they are perfect but they did make an improvement. I would go a few steps further as in the changes I've already written about.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:56 pmCrime didn’t go up so....a slight decline in crime and police are accountable to the people they serve and are not above the law and it’s less money..... sounds like a win. Good conservative policy.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:50 pmyouthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:34 pm
Define worked.....read the whole story. They damned near doubled the amount of police, only dropped 9 spots from 1 to 10th as worst crime city in America. And total citizens dropped by ~7k, less section 8 housing, and more
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-6%3famp
Only Brooklyn logic would recommend a new and improved police force that still beats people as a success. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKef9hgOFio
You likely missed the point of it all - the old guard (if you can call it that) was nuked. A new guard, one that is accountable to the public, was brought in. Made all the difference. This is not to say they are perfect but they did make an improvement. I would go a few steps further as in the changes I've already written about.
Guys, I've read the article three times, though have not explored the links so there may be more detail beyond, so the following may not be 100% correct. But based on the article:youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:20 pmWould love to see the ledger sheet. Hard to fathom how costs went down when the amount of police almost doubled.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:56 pmCrime didn’t go up so....a slight decline in crime and police are accountable to the people they serve and are not above the law and it’s less money..... sounds like a win. Good conservative policy.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:50 pmyouthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:34 pm
Define worked.....read the whole story. They damned near doubled the amount of police, only dropped 9 spots from 1 to 10th as worst crime city in America. And total citizens dropped by ~7k, less section 8 housing, and more
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-6%3famp
Only Brooklyn logic would recommend a new and improved police force that still beats people as a success. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKef9hgOFio
You likely missed the point of it all - the old guard (if you can call it that) was nuked. A new guard, one that is accountable to the public, was brought in. Made all the difference. This is not to say they are perfect but they did make an improvement. I would go a few steps further as in the changes I've already written about.
What would you like to discuss about the title of this thread?ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:05 pm i have a question. much discussion on whether the coronavirus thread had an offensive subject. should we have that here?
someone's going to chime in and say one is true, the other isnt. so i guess not worth discussing.
i agree. we watched them putt, and then left it short.holmes435 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:59 pmWhat would you like to discuss about the title of this thread?ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:05 pm i have a question. much discussion on whether the coronavirus thread had an offensive subject. should we have that here?
someone's going to chime in and say one is true, the other isnt. so i guess not worth discussing.
From my point of view COVID-19 potentially originated in China, but it wasn't created by the Chinese or deliberately spread by the Chinese, but by their incompetence and authoritarian tendencies (and potentially stopped in-country by those same fascist and authoritarian controls). We had many opportunities to stop it spreading like wildfire here, but unlike other countries with the same information we had who crushed the virus, we did not.
The 'White Men' terror cases both originated from these deranged white men and were created by these white men and their insulated cohorts. They account for a very small amount of crime and deaths in the US, but account for nearly 3/4 of terror-related incidents and terror-related deaths in the US since 9/11 (and before).
I've put up my arguments above, but I'm very much open for a discussion vs. the trolling and meme posting in other threads if you want to discuss it a bit further.
I disagree with people who think "Chinese Coronavirus" is a racist labeling, but I do agree it is an attempt to shift blame from our own failings even if China still bears some responsibility. I'm not sure if I've seen any complaints that it is a racist label on the various sites I visit, but I don't go on Twitter.ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:17 am i agree. we watched them putt, and then left it short.
agreed too on terror. questions i'd ask- because statistics can be manipulated- are we looking at all incidents, or on a per-capita basis? that changes the mathematics.
secondly, i wonder if someone who is white finds the headline offensive, because it can brand many ("biggest") white men as terrorists. i don't think that necessarily, nor am i offended, but many took offense with the covid subject. i think it's merely stating a fact (though, see my first question).
thank you for discussing!
Major drug decriminalization would be a improvement thing IMO.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:28 amGuys, I've read the article three times, though have not explored the links so there may be more detail beyond, so the following may not be 100% correct. But based on the article:youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:20 pmWould love to see the ledger sheet. Hard to fathom how costs went down when the amount of police almost doubled.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:56 pmCrime didn’t go up so....a slight decline in crime and police are accountable to the people they serve and are not above the law and it’s less money..... sounds like a win. Good conservative policy.Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:50 pmyouthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:34 pm
Define worked.....read the whole story. They damned near doubled the amount of police, only dropped 9 spots from 1 to 10th as worst crime city in America. And total citizens dropped by ~7k, less section 8 housing, and more
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-6%3famp
Only Brooklyn logic would recommend a new and improved police force that still beats people as a success. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKef9hgOFio
You likely missed the point of it all - the old guard (if you can call it that) was nuked. A new guard, one that is accountable to the public, was brought in. Made all the difference. This is not to say they are perfect but they did make an improvement. I would go a few steps further as in the changes I've already written about.
Camden's 'defund' and 'rebuild' appears to not be an exact model for what should be done going forward.
It appears that the drop in funding was across the board, cutting libraries and all sorts of other services, as well as 167 officers...and then the dismissal of all police, then the hiring of 411 police staff, more than, by my math, the prior level (from the article, the less than 350 prior to the changes. Not "doubled" but more.
It appears to have had mixed impact, muddled by the reduction in population.
If the point is that 'defund' and 'rebuild/reform' is a practical possibility, then yes, Camden proves it can be done.
But when this is done, far more attention needs to be in surging other services, yes at considerable cost, to actually improve the living conditions of those in those areas most vulnerable to crime and most likely to turn to violent crime.
IMO, the most important element not yet being discussed is the criticality of decriminalizing all drug usage, making substance abuse and mental health a major, well funded public health priority, rather than a policing matter. Take the money out of the drug trade and you radically change the value of taking and defending street corners. Take the profitability out of employing children to run drugs and to recruit other children to the trade and to the usage of drugs...Do so and you can radically reduce incarceration, saving enormous sums that can be deployed to public health and economic opportunity.
Doing so will also dramatically reduce the frequency of actual confrontations between citizens and police, as well as the general violence threat level police understandably feel as they battle the drug trade scourge.
Of course, there also needs to be way, way better training on deescalation of confrontation and explicit rules about use of force and clearcut citizen-led commissions enabling the removal of offending officers, regardless of union objection.
agreed again. if i was acting the contrarian, i'd say to don lemon: sure, but 61% of the population is white (making ~30% white male), so without further analysis, it's not nearly as conclusive as he makes it. then again, i've never really trusted him for objectivity. same point as yours- bombast.holmes435 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:38 pmI disagree with people who think "Chinese Coronavirus" is a racist labeling, but I do agree it is an attempt to shift blame from our own failings even if China still bears some responsibility. I'm not sure if I've seen any complaints that it is a racist label on the various sites I visit, but I don't go on Twitter.ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:17 am i agree. we watched them putt, and then left it short.
agreed too on terror. questions i'd ask- because statistics can be manipulated- are we looking at all incidents, or on a per-capita basis? that changes the mathematics.
secondly, i wonder if someone who is white finds the headline offensive, because it can brand many ("biggest") white men as terrorists. i don't think that necessarily, nor am i offended, but many took offense with the covid subject. i think it's merely stating a fact (though, see my first question).
thank you for discussing!
It took a little digging, but it looks like this was the incident Bandito / PB was originally mad about: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/ ... 843131002/
So it looks like after 9/11 until 2016, far-right extremists carried out nearly three times as many attacks as Islamic extremists, but the Islamic extremist attacks were more deadly overall. Not sure what the exact stats are since 2016, but we've had some high profile attacks since then. You'd also need to take a look at the overall population of white extremists vs. incidents and islamic extremists vs. incidents to get a better look.
CNN and other outlets are going for the big headlines and opinions, and "White Men = biggest terror threat" is certainly attention grabbing. It could be technically correct, but they should be more specific in saying White right-wing (say that three times fast) extremist terrorism, especially if they're going to complain about the right saying Islamic terrorism vs. Islamic extremist terrorism or something that fits much better.
The issue is not a demographic % matter. The only question is whether we should be more concerned about a terrorist attack from an ideologically motivated Islamic terrorist group or an ideologically motivated white nationalist group, or perhaps an ideologically motivated environmental terrorist group or perhaps an anarchist... ALL should be a concern for law enforcement, but for quite awhile all the public attention was on the Islamic threat, despite the domestic white nationalist threat actually being more prevalent these past 15 years, at least here in the US. That was causing us to look at our fellow US citizens who are Muslims, who have actually had very little terrorist activity, very differently than the far more prevalent threat from our fellow citizens who are white nationalists.ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:04 pmagreed again. if i was acting the contrarian, i'd say to don lemon: sure, but 61% of the population is white (making ~30% white male), so without further analysis, it's not nearly as conclusive as he makes it. then again, i've never really trusted him for objectivity. same point as yours- bombast.holmes435 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:38 pmI disagree with people who think "Chinese Coronavirus" is a racist labeling, but I do agree it is an attempt to shift blame from our own failings even if China still bears some responsibility. I'm not sure if I've seen any complaints that it is a racist label on the various sites I visit, but I don't go on Twitter.ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:17 am i agree. we watched them putt, and then left it short.
agreed too on terror. questions i'd ask- because statistics can be manipulated- are we looking at all incidents, or on a per-capita basis? that changes the mathematics.
secondly, i wonder if someone who is white finds the headline offensive, because it can brand many ("biggest") white men as terrorists. i don't think that necessarily, nor am i offended, but many took offense with the covid subject. i think it's merely stating a fact (though, see my first question).
thank you for discussing!
It took a little digging, but it looks like this was the incident Bandito / PB was originally mad about: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/ ... 843131002/
So it looks like after 9/11 until 2016, far-right extremists carried out nearly three times as many attacks as Islamic extremists, but the Islamic extremist attacks were more deadly overall. Not sure what the exact stats are since 2016, but we've had some high profile attacks since then. You'd also need to take a look at the overall population of white extremists vs. incidents and islamic extremists vs. incidents to get a better look.
CNN and other outlets are going for the big headlines and opinions, and "White Men = biggest terror threat" is certainly attention grabbing. It could be technically correct, but they should be more specific in saying White right-wing (say that three times fast) extremist terrorism, especially if they're going to complain about the right saying Islamic terrorism vs. Islamic extremist terrorism or something that fits much better.