BuckSwope

Can you point to any of my posts that lead you to believe that I would not be on the cop's side in this situation? Why are you asking me about this random example?

I did, thank you. Again, I agree with you but also apply that to the right. Both are being governed by the extreme and letting that totalitarian lean into the parties. We just had a back and forth about how maybe we don't want to cheer too much for their plan for a possible R victory and control the government.

Gee, something tells me you aren't actually after decent discussion. Is that really what you took out of all my posts?

Of course there is some of that, but you are kidding yourself if you think the right uses these tactics. Politics 101.

I don't know that it's quite that. I think generally speaking on the right its that they are dug into a few concepts: they are pro-cop/tough on crime, guns are good, and the left horrible and their opposite (which means they are anti-cop/pro crime - and let's be honest, there are many examples of this sentiment out there to for them to focus on and bolster their belief) and fock their ideas. In my mind, I see the policing for profit as a huge overstep in government and enforcement. I thought that was also a right concept. I think the large number of stops is really dangerous for cops. I think they are woefully undertrained. To me, that is a pro-cop stance as I want them to be trained and safe. Again, a right concept (I thought). I think it makes sense to have vastly different methods for those really dangerous and crime riddled areas vs. the rest of the 90% of the city. But everything is polarized, so there is no nuance in discussion it's either more cops or less. Just another topic that has become higly polarized with both sides digging in and not thinking rationally, IMO.

Either way, appreciate the back and forth, @RLLD

To the point of the bolded, IMO that still extends to today, because our policing methods made the AA as a whole feel like they are being thought of as criminals and targeted as such. That relationship of police and AA is in dire need of fixing. I think doing largely away with stopping for minor infractions would help that a lot. That was where ideas like mailed tickets for infractions like or different "types" of cops came into play, but were ignored because Defund the Police. I agree no easy answers. Outside of really thinking hard about our policing, there needs to more focus on education, jobs, opportunities in these poor and crime riddled communities. I don't quite see eye to eye on the right about the family, but of course having both parents alive and in the picture is a huge bonus for kids and their chances.

The left is so terrible at their messaging. Most people will see "Disbanded", assume that means no cops, and lose interest. Why couldn't it be revamped, updated, reconfigured - something? Maybe more people would listen to a couple of the ideas in there.

See, the big part to me missing in that last part is EFFECTIVE. Sorry, if we continue to police the same way and just to more of it, the frustrations/shootings/cop injuries are just going to continue. As with the first bolded, that is what I largely saw in some of the ideas of defund the police I said I agreed with last night. There are good ideas in there for improvement that I saw all over the place being asked for. But like everything else, it's the loons with the loudest voice so it turned into defund the police = no cops, which of course is dumb if people are asking for that. But in there I saw things from less stops for minor infractions, more focus on trouble areas and easing up police elsewhere, more training for cops, more community outreach. That all sounds good to me. The fact that we had proof of City officials talking to police chiefs about revenue goals should trouble us all (again, see Ferguson Report). That has nothing to do with community safety.

I guess when I read this, I think you don't actually agree with me that our method of policing at it's core is incorrect like you posted above. If it's not effective, why do it? It's not a matter of sucking it up to weed out the criminals, because the method we are talking about is not weeding out the criminals because they are largely not there. I am sure that for that 5% of the city that lives in the areas you are talking about that method is more tolerable than the crime. These are the people who are yelling the loudest now when the police are getting taken away, and with good reason. That we can agree on. Where we seem to disagree is that I don't think that attitude applies to the of the city. To me it starts becoming less effective and a danger to cops. It turns into merely a profit machine for the city and I am not Ok with that either. Police are to protect and serve, not generate revenue.

You realize that posters like seafoam post that dumb stuff to get reaction from libs like you just did, correct?

I largely agree on the first paragraph, but we are veering off. Yes/no to the second part. We already agreed that the system of policing is: stop for infractions, look for guns/drugs/criminals, right? So how i see it is more like this. These studies came out many years ago showing that was a very effective tactic in those very isolated areas. Crime dropped in those areas, so that must be an effective way to police, right? so they use that everywhere. We all are adults and can also agree that those initial areas were probably poor black neighborhoods with a lot of gang activity. It's not the black community as a whole, but it's probably one of their neighborhoods in a big city. So if we agree that in those cases 50% of the violent crime is coming from there, wouldn't the police look for similar things outside that zone? They can't pull people over for nothing, right? And as you move outside that zone that method of policing is not effective, because again - it's largely not where the crime is. SO inside the localized zone, they are pulling gang bangers over left and right and finding a ton of guns and drugs. Probably a certain look, certain types of cars, you get the drift. Maybe they pull over 100 cars and find something on 40% of them (I am just making up numbers here to relay my point). Yes, in those areas criminals get frustrated, violent crime drops, etc.. Now, as you get further and further out - because of their methods and what they are looking for in the other areas, who are they going to be pulling over and checking? But the violent criminals are largely not out there, and probably not at 3pm. So you go from pulling over a large % of criminals and frustrating them to pulling over a much larger % of law abiding people going about their day - can't you see where that frustration would start to bubble up? For their safety, they have to also treat each stop as though there are criminals, guns, and drugs in the equation. Again, to me this explains what we see in the country. Cops do that because it can be effective. The black community as a whole can feel frustrated because outside those localized range, they are probably getting pulled over more. Interactions are heated because one side is frustrated and the other side is trained to treat them as though they have guns and drugs so each stop can be tense. Cities see the outcry of the 80% and drop police across the board, which ... takes away police from those trouble areas and now we see crime spike in the black communities.

Do you honestly think that represents what we see though, or are the police doing what I describe everywhere? Again, using my example - if the crime is THAT localized, what good is it doing when you are employing that method of policing say, a neighborhood over at 3pm? Aren't the cops still pulling over people with tinted windows, failure to signal, rolling stops, etc.. Why? If we can show when and where the large portion of the crime is, you honestly don't see how that would be an irritant to those people? It's not addressing the crime, because for the most part it's not there, as we have already discussed. So if they aren't largely getting the violent criminals here, who are they repeatedly pulling over? To me this explains damn near all the issues we are seeing. Communities feeling they are being harassed. Too many stops going south for a variety of reasons. Profitable revenue stream for the city, on and on.

Of course there are, and that's dumb. Go find them and talk to them about it, it doesn't apply here.

Great, on the same page so far. To me, that is the core of the issue, and where most of this stems from - not rogue cops, not racist cops, but our way of policing in general. So when I say it's systemic, that is what I mean. Race hasn't even entered the equation. Let's just imagine a fairly decent sized city and assume that the stats and studies were correct that (I think it makes common sense too) that a city's crime is quite centrally located to an area and time. For our thought experiment, we will just say there is 4-5 city blocks that are high crime areas at night. That is where 50% of violent crime is coming from, probably a good assumption that drugs, guns, whatever are being dealt etc. By all means, use that method then and there - it's been shown to drop crime significantly. For the rest of the time, what is happening though?

I still don't think you are getting what I am saying. To me this isn't even about rogue or bad cops, though I will admit that is also an issue. We have a SYSTEM of policing that largely revolves around the idea that it's good policy to stop people for minor infractions and look for: guns, drugs, criminals. That's not select individuals doing this, it's largely a way of policing. Do you at least agree on this point?

I don't agree fully with you here -there are nuggets of good ideas wrapped in a terrible packaging with bad ideas. You also seem to say the police are not the problem, and I also disagree there. Our policing system is part of the problem, but I don't believe the motivations are to target black people because of the color of their skin. IMO you and others seem to think that anybody who is saying police are an issue believes they are an issue because of racism. It's odd to me that none of you seem to think that policing for profit is a bad idea. It's all in the Ferguson report how it was tied to the city and their requests for more money, and which neighborhoods were the focus of attention. Where it spins out of control is when the narrative goes to loony town and people think blacks are being mowed down by cop by the 1000s.

Correct, it's also not what some of the programs were that were helping, either.

I must have missed this one.

I don't know, but I didn't agree with the move. At least I know you are for some socialist programs though, Commie.

What is with you guys and the focking videos?

Of course it does. Do you think those previous programs were also helping childhood poverty?

Yeah, he took away those socialist programs we had during covid to help with issues like that.

To me, this is a perfect example of what I am talking about but you still don't seem to see how it might affect black communities. From what I posted above, two things could be true: 1. That level of policing or more is needed for those small % of areas/times. 2. 90% of the city feels like they are being over policed, harrassed, etc. as they are being pulled over too often. So if a city decides to defund police, it's probably in a general way - so those 90% might be a little happier, but crime is rising because #1 isn't addressed. Which, IMO is what you see with an example like yours.

But they won't, because it has turned into a revenue source for way too many cities. A lot of this info was coming to light after Ferguson and from those studies and others. I don't think it's some cops, it's the way we police. If you didn't see the discussion elsewhere, what I mean is that it was shown that stopping cars randomly and looking for drugs and guns was an effective tool for police to use...... but only in certain areas and certain times. 50% of crime in a city is concentrated to areas as small as a few streets or blocks, and often at certain time, for example. But, that tactic is overused even in those areas, and it quickly becomes and irritant to the population when they are getting pulled over for random sh1t. Also, it's unsafe - especially for cops because it ramps up their encounters and also makes it so they are on high alert for drugs/guns and have to be extra cautious and treat each encounter like one of those is a very real possibility. However, that cat is out of the bag, and we largely have seen our police force use this form of policing in a widespread way. Why would the cities get away from that when the revenue from tickets and infractions are rolling in? Hell, crime might be also going down in some of those areas that needed it, but in other places they could be doing more harm than good, and it's a big reason why tensions are where they are and a segment of the population feels targeted.