Can anyone say how the whole "January 6 thing" was worse than the 2020 riots?

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

The cost of policing in higher crime areas, to the local people, is more palatable than the crime. And until the police are able to wring that criminalitu out of that area....it will be better to be stopped and inconvenienced....than to have a loved one killed.....just that simple.

My suggestion to those impacted is simple....suck it up....help the police not the criminals.....and until the police can get those criminals off the streets and into jail, you might be inconvenieced....

It is really up to the people that live there.  Decide, embrace criminality to avoid police involvment....or support the police, and eventually come out the other side....

I know what I would choose....

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. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

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. 

Nothing is perfect, and policing is also imperfect.  It can always be improved and it should be.

Pretending that policing is the problem is less effective than dealing with the criminals and their actions. Removing them from society.  People benefit when criminals are not roaming among us. Policing is how we fend that off.

More policing = better experience. Eventually, with enough effort the locality can enjoy a more peaceful existence.  But there is never a univariate situation. I think the bigger, and better, question is how do we fix the culture that inspires illegality. That is a far more interesting pursuit. 

[BuckSwope 654]

14 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Nothing is perfect, and policing is also imperfect.  It can always be improved and it should be.

Pretending that policing is the problem is less effective than dealing with the criminals and their actions. Removing them from society.  People benefit when criminals are not roaming among us. Policing is how we fend that off.

More policing = better experience. Eventually, with enough effort the locality can enjoy a more peaceful existence.  But there is never a univariate situation. I think the bigger, and better, question is how do we fix the culture that inspires illegality. That is a far more interesting pursuit. 

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.  

[BuckSwope 654]

30 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Camden NJ disbanded their police force, and murders plummeted.  It's not perfect, but a good use case for how police reform improves the community.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disbanded-its-police-force-here-s-what-n1231677

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.  

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, BuckSwope said:

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 see your point, I get it.  I think there is always an opportunity to be more effective of course. And I hope that with the up front effort to address the problem more forecfully that eventually we could move away from more aggressive tactics. And franky, the only reason we would have to employ that additional force is the bad policies that have restricted police, allowing criminality to grow.

But even then, how do we de-program the decades of abuse? The sickness in the AA culture is not of their own creation, it started in the days of slavery and the Democrats fed it even into the 1990's.

It is a nasty problem with no simple answers. Though i think one big positive would be repairing the family.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I see your point, I get it.  I think there is always an opportunity to be more effective of course. And I hope that with the up front effort to address the problem more forecfully that eventually we could move away from more aggressive tactics. And franky, the only reason we would have to employ that additional force is the bad policies that have restricted police, allowing criminality to grow.

But even then, how do we de-program the decades of abuse? The sickness in the AA culture is not of their own creation, it started in the days of slavery and the Democrats fed it even into the 1990's.

It is a nasty problem with no simple answers. Though i think one big positive would be repairing the family.

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.  

[BuckSwope 654]

Either way, appreciate the back and forth, @RLLD

[RLLD 4,143]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Either way, appreciate the back and forth, @RLLD

Thank you, you gave me some things to really think about.

[seafoam1 2,803]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

This is simply not true. It depends on the situation. 

Other than hiring illegals off the street and paying them a few bucks that they will never pay taxes on, you are such a good person. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

26 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

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.  

The problems with many police forces is that they are corrupt across all levels.  By "Disbanding" the police force and replacing it with a new police force, it eliminates corruption, reduces costs, and reduces crime.

I don't know why the right has this "Cops can do no wrong" mantra.

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I think it’s fair to read this statement and regard you as a fascist. Especially since you use the word “unjustified” which suggests that there is “justified” violence.
 

You are not a conservative; never call yourself that again. You are an authoritarian fascist. 

Justified violence is called protecting yourself or others from unjustified violence dumbass. 

Liberals like yourself are the embobodiment of fascism.

 

[jonmx 2,424]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

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.  

Don't kid yourself, the messaging is exactly what they want.  The goal is to keep division.  Dependency, fear and division is how they increase and centralize their power.  

[BuckSwope 654]

16 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

The problems with many police forces is that they are corrupt across all levels.  By "Disbanding" the police force and replacing it with a new police force, it eliminates corruption, reduces costs, and reduces crime.

I don't know why the right has this "Cops can do no wrong" mantra.

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.  

[jerryskids 6,567]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

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.  

I apologize if I missed it, but do you have data which shows that cops are descending on suburbia and harassing Toyota Camry's with window stickers of stick people and stick dogs?

[BuckSwope 654]

26 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Don't kid yourself, the messaging is exactly what they want.  The goal is to keep division.  Dependency, fear and division is how they increase and centralize their power.  

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

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

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

I think you meant to say "does not". It is a salient point, they are all politcians, so they are likely all doing this to some extent. I think the distinction is the totalitarian tilt of leftist ideology infiltrating deeply into modern liberalism.

[BuckSwope 654]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I apologize if I missed it, but do you have data which shows that cops are descending on suburbia and harassing Toyota Camry's with window stickers of stick people and stick dogs?

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

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I think you meant to say "does not". It is a salient point, they are all politcians, so they are likely all doing this to some extent. I think the distinction is the totalitarian tilt of leftist ideology infiltrating deeply into modern liberalism.

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.  

[shadrap 220]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

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.  

so how is this for messaging?

NY repeat felon breaks Yonkers police officer’s nose with ‘sucker punch,’ released without bail, police say | Fox News

[BuckSwope 654]

2 minutes ago, shadrap said:

so how is this for messaging?

NY repeat felon breaks Yonkers police officer’s nose with ‘sucker punch,’ released without bail, police say | Fox News

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? 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

I really enjoyed the thoughtful discussion between RLLD and BuckSwope, though I generally lean towards one side, obviously. But this is the sort of debate we need more of around here. 

Moving back to the original topic of this thread: I don’t believe the two events are very comparable. For one thing the riots that occurred after George Floyd were sporadic, spontaneous events over several days and weeks. There was no planning that went into them, no deliberate effort. Like the Rodney King riots of the 90s, the Detroit, Newark and Watts riots of the 60s, they basically represented the anger of black people in our inner cities over their perceived treatment by police. There have been enough of these incidents in our recent history to suggest that these are not directed events. 

Conversely, the January 6 riot appears to have been planned deliberately, which is the reason that Donald Trump and others have been indicted. We will learn in due time whether this is true or not though the facts already seem pretty clear to some of us. Certainly this part is true: the January 6 riot was intended to prevent the peaceful transference of political power in this country. Therefore without commenting on whether or not this event was “worse” or “better” than the George Floyd riots, it has a very different level of significance. 

I would note that only one side is continually bringing up this comparison. It seems to me that the reason for doing so is not so much to discuss the actual facts and roots surrounding the Floyd riots, but instead as an attempt to lessen the import of what happened on January 6. If so, this is, I believe, doomed to fail. 

[jerryskids 6,567]

12 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

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

What I took from your posts, for the purpose of my post, is that you believe that the same policing methodologies used successfully in high-crime areas are also used in low-crime areas.  I'm asking if you have data to support it.

Also I'm sorry for adding a little snark to make my point.  When you recover and crawl out of your safe space, please provide the data.   

[jerryskids 6,567]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I really enjoyed the thoughtful discussion between RLLD and BuckSwope, though I generally lean towards one side, obviously. But this is the sort of debate we need more of around here. 

Moving back to the original topic of this thread: I don’t believe the two events are very comparable. For one thing the riots that occurred after George Floyd were sporadic, spontaneous events over several days and weeks. There was no planning that went into them, no deliberate effort. Like the Rodney King riots of the 90s, the Detroit, Newark and Watts riots of the 60s, they basically represented the anger of black people in our inner cities over their perceived treatment by police. There have been enough of these incidents in our recent history to suggest that these are not directed events. 

Conversely, the January 6 riot appears to have been planned deliberately, which is the reason that Donald Trump and others have been indicted. We will learn in due time whether this is true or not though the facts already seem pretty clear to some of us. Certainly this part is true: the January 6 riot was intended to prevent the peaceful transference of political power in this country. Therefore without commenting on whether or not this event was “worse” or “better” than the George Floyd riots, it has a very different level of significance. 

I would note that only one side is continually bringing up this comparison. It seems to me that the reason for doing so is not so much to discuss the actual facts and roots surrounding the Floyd riots, but instead as an attempt to lessen the import of what happened on January 6. If so, this is, I believe, doomed to fail. 

I cannot fathom how anyone who paid any attention during the riots could possibly believe the bolded.  Antifa consistently bussed people and supplies for the express purpose of rioting.

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I cannot fathom how anyone who paid any attention during the riots could possibly believe the bolded.  Antifa consistently bussed people and supplies for the express purpose of rioting.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I admit I know very little about Antifa but my assumption is that they’re extremely tiny and didn’t bus anyone anywhere. Certainly in the inner cities, where most of the violence took place after hours, bussing wouldn’t be necessary. But I’m open to whatever you might have that would prove my assumptions incorrect. 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

In fact here are several articles and analysis that appear to contradict the claim that antifa coordinated the 2020 riots: 

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/
 

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/
 

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/tnamp/

[seafoam1 2,803]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I admit I know very little about Antifa but my assumption is that they’re extremely tiny and didn’t bus anyone anywhere. Certainly in the inner cities, where most of the violence took place after hours, bussing wouldn’t be necessary. But I’m open to whatever you might have that would prove my assumptions incorrect. 

There is focking video of it dumbass. Trucks being unloaded with makeshift shields etc. Video of same people in different cities throwing molotov cocktails at police and harming others. You pay zero attention to what you believe in and focus on trying dig for stuff on people you hate. 

You pay no attention to the antifa idiots stopping traffic and harassing motorists. You are so focking liberally stupid. 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

There is focking video of it dumbass. Trucks being unloaded with makeshift shields etc. Video of same people in different cities throwing molotov cocktails at police and harming others. You pay zero attention to what you believe in and focus on trying dig for stuff on people you hate. 

This isn’t actual data. It’s the kind of crap that people like you suck up because you want to believe it rather than actual analytical facts. The FBI could find no factual evidence of Antifa’s involvement, much less leadership. In fact there was NO leadership to these riots. 

[seafoam1 2,803]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This isn’t actual data. It’s the kind of crap that people like you suck up because you want to believe it rather than actual analytical facts. The FBI could find no factual evidence of Antifa’s involvement, much less leadership. In fact there was NO leadership to these riots. 

It's not actual data? It's just video evidence. Got it. And the DOJ didn't find anything incriminating on Hunter's laptop either. 

Go figure. 

Go hire another illegal to move some garbage for you even though you can barely afford it.  

[BuckSwope 654]

32 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What I took from your posts, for the purpose of my post, is that you believe that the same policing methodologies used successfully in high-crime areas are also used in low-crime areas.  I'm asking if you have data to support it.

Also I'm sorry for adding a little snark to make my point.  When you recover and crawl out of your safe space, please provide the data.   

What exactly do you disagree with in my posts and not think is happening? 

I've brought the Ferguson report multiple times - maybe start there.  I can even post a link if you really need that.   So much in there about the policing for profit, pressure from the city to increase revenue, and how that spilled over into certain communities.    I've read a few books that have been interesting and bring up these points from Ghettoside to Talking with Strangers to a book by Ron Martinelli that I can't remember offhand - something about the truth of BLM and the war on police?   I know a few cops and have talked to them about things.  

Other than that, I think most of you are being willfully ignorant or like I said - live in a completely different country.   If you completely disagree with my premise that so much of this is about $ for the city and less about safety of citizens that's one thing.  If you can get on board with the idea that these quotas and pressures are a real thing, then maybe next step is just to think about it - if you were an officer under pressure to write tickets and justify your job, where would you start in your cities you live in?  What kind of cars and people would you pull over? 

 

[Fnord 2,051]

5 hours ago, RLLD said:

Good people never mind the presence of police

This is absurd. They certainly do when they're being unfairly targeted. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

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.  

In terms of extremism, I acquiesce that one could look and find it on both sides. But I would note that we do not see cancellation, subjugation, intimidation and violence dominating the right...nor is is tolerated from the right....on the left however, we see all of that.  The distinction is how they frame themselves and their ideological opponents....

The left projects anything not within their ideology as evil, must be stopped, ended....cannot be tolerated.....and as a result, they allow themselves to be violent, suppressive, intolerant....   the depth and intensity of the intrusion of Maoist leftism into modern liberalism does not have a parallel on the right. 

[RLLD 4,143]

7 minutes ago, Fnord said:

This is absurd. They certainly do when they're being unfairly targeted. 

Not at all. If the police stop you, then work with them.  They are the wall between us and the criminals. As a non-criminal, I have never objected to the police. If you have a problem with the police, it is likely the problem is NOT the police 

[jerryskids 6,567]

37 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

What exactly do you disagree with in my posts and not think is happening? 

I've brought the Ferguson report multiple times - maybe start there.  I can even post a link if you really need that.   So much in there about the policing for profit, pressure from the city to increase revenue, and how that spilled over into certain communities.    I've read a few books that have been interesting and bring up these points from Ghettoside to Talking with Strangers to a book by Ron Martinelli that I can't remember offhand - something about the truth of BLM and the war on police?   I know a few cops and have talked to them about things.  

Other than that, I think most of you are being willfully ignorant or like I said - live in a completely different country.   If you completely disagree with my premise that so much of this is about $ for the city and less about safety of citizens that's one thing.  If you can get on board with the idea that these quotas and pressures are a real thing, then maybe next step is just to think about it - if you were an officer under pressure to write tickets and justify your job, where would you start in your cities you live in?  What kind of cars and people would you pull over? 

 

To the bolded, I would go to the high crime locations, and I would pull over the people that best fit the profile that I had developed from my experience on the job.  Which is why I'm confused about your point that they are doing the same things all over the city.  

I'm not familiar with the details of the quota system you are describing so I hesitate to comment on it.

[BuckSwope 654]

9 minutes ago, RLLD said:

In terms of extremism, I acquiesce that one could look and find it on both sides. But I would note that we do not see cancellation, subjugation, intimidation and violence dominating the right...nor is is tolerated from the right....on the left however, we see all of that.  The distinction is how they frame themselves and their ideological opponents....

The left projects anything not within their ideology as evil, must be stopped, ended....cannot be tolerated.....and as a result, they allow themselves to be violent, suppressive, intolerant....   the depth and intensity of the intrusion of Maoist leftism into modern liberalism does not have a parallel on the right. 

Do you not read posts around here?  Please tell me you don't think this mostly doesn't apply to the right as well.  Usually when I point that out I get the "well, how do you expect us to react when the left is doing x, y, and x?" type of stuff I was busting Jerry on the other day.   

What I will agree with you on is that currently we see more of that from the left because they dominate keys areas - media and education to name a couple.  I don't believe for a second that if the right was in control of those it would be sunshine and roses - it would be more of the same but from the other side.  IMO you also don't have an equivalent because the right is a bit more of a unified front, but they are playing the long game through the courts and such.   The left has more intrusion of the racial lefties but their party is more fractured.  Again, IMO.  

[RLLD 4,143]

5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Do you not read posts around here?  Please tell me you don't think this mostly doesn't apply to the right as well.  Usually when I point that out I get the "well, how do you expect us to react when the left is doing x, y, and x?" type of stuff I was busting Jerry on the other day.   

What I will agree with you on is that currently we see more of that from the left because they dominate keys areas - media and education to name a couple.  I don't believe for a second that if the right was in control of those it would be sunshine and roses - it would be more of the same but from the other side.  IMO you also don't have an equivalent because the right is a bit more of a unified front, but they are playing the long game through the courts and such.   The left has more intrusion of the racial lefties but their party is more fractured.  Again, IMO.  

I am not limited to the content of a lightly-trafficked message board..... I look at the nation, and the overall activity....and right now, thankfully....violence, intolerance and cancellation are the key tools used by those supporting Liberal stances. Time and again......on the more rare occasion that it arises on the right it is squashed, assailed and dealt with appropriately....when it happens on the left, well, we just have to understand....  

[BuckSwope 654]

Just now, jerryskids said:

To the bolded, I would go to the high crime locations, and I would pull over the people that best fit the profile that I had developed from my experience on the job.  Which is why I'm confused about your point that they are doing the same things all over the city.  

I'm not familiar with the details of the quota system you are describing so I hesitate to comment on it.

HERE,   and just a small part from the beginning... 

Focus on Generating Revenue The City budgets for sizeable increases in municipal fines and fees each year, exhorts police and court staff to deliver those revenue increases, and closely monitors whether those increases are achieved. City officials routinely urge Chief Jackson to generate more revenue through enforcement. In March 2010, for instance, the City Finance Director wrote to Chief Jackson that “unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year. . . . Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall, it’s not an insignificant issue.” Similarly, in March 2013, the Finance Director wrote to the City Manager: “Court fees are anticipated to rise about 7.5%. I did ask the Chief if he thought the PD could deliver 10% increase. He indicated they could try.” The importance of focusing on revenue generation is communicated to FPD officers. Ferguson police officers from all ranks told us that revenue generation is stressed heavily within the police department, and that the message comes from City leadership. The evidence we reviewed supports this perception

 

Ok, but then do you believe that all cops can go where they want or do they have precincts?   So if you are an officer outside that main zone I speak of where a good chunk of the violence/crime/drugs are, and you are being pressured to deliver - who are you now stopping and looking for?  

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

HERE,   and just a small part from the beginning... 

Focus on Generating Revenue The City budgets for sizeable increases in municipal fines and fees each year, exhorts police and court staff to deliver those revenue increases, and closely monitors whether those increases are achieved. City officials routinely urge Chief Jackson to generate more revenue through enforcement. In March 2010, for instance, the City Finance Director wrote to Chief Jackson that “unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year. . . . Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall, it’s not an insignificant issue.” Similarly, in March 2013, the Finance Director wrote to the City Manager: “Court fees are anticipated to rise about 7.5%. I did ask the Chief if he thought the PD could deliver 10% increase. He indicated they could try.” The importance of focusing on revenue generation is communicated to FPD officers. Ferguson police officers from all ranks told us that revenue generation is stressed heavily within the police department, and that the message comes from City leadership. The evidence we reviewed supports this perception

 

Ok, but then do you believe that all cops can go where they want or do they have precincts?   So if you are an officer outside that main zone I speak of where a good chunk of the violence/crime/drugs are, and you are being pressured to deliver - who are you now stopping and looking for?  

And lets not forget about Asset Forfeiture Abuse

[jerryskids 6,567]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

In fact here are several articles and analysis that appear to contradict the claim that antifa coordinated the 2020 riots: 

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/
 

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/
 

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/tnamp/

It's fascinating, when I first tried to google this topic, I got an entire page about 1/6 even though I specifically put 2020 riots in the search.  When I modified it I got a curated list from the top Leftist sources like yours, including WaPo, CNN, USA Today.  All said "no evidence of Antifa!"  

I thought the NYT one was kind of interesting.  Excerpts:

Quote

A review of the arrests of dozens of people on federal charges reveals no known effort by antifa to perpetrate a coordinated campaign of violence. Some criminal complaints described vague, anti-government political leanings among suspects, but a majority of the violent acts that have taken place at protests have been attributed by federal prosecutors to individuals with no affiliation to any particular group.

Even so, Attorney General William P. Barr has blamed antifa for orchestrating the mass protests, which broke out in cities and towns across the country after the death in police custody of George Floyd. “There is clearly some high degree of organization involved at some of these events and coordinated tactics that we are seeing,” Mr. Barr said. “Some of it relates to antifa, some of it relates to groups that act very much like antifa.”

...

Asked why the myriad criminal complaints do not single out antifa, Mr. Barr said on Fox News this week that preliminary charges did not require linking suspects to a particular group, adding that there was “a witches’ brew of extremist groups that are trying to exploit this situation on all sides.”

F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors have pursued charges aggressively against rioters, looters and others accused of wreaking havoc during the demonstrations. Law enforcement officials have relied on a variety of federal statutes to make arrests, including conspiracy to commit arson, starting a riot, civil disorder and possession of a Molotov cocktail.

...

While anarchists and anti-fascists openly acknowledged being part of the immense crowds, they call the scale, intensity and durability of the protests far beyond anything they might dream of organizing. Some tactics used at the protests, like the wearing of all black and the shattering of store windows, are reminiscent of those used by anarchist groups, say those who study such movements.

In Portland, Ore., those affiliated with Rose City Antifa said they had supported the continuing protests. But the city’s antifa actions have long involved a wide range of people, some who dress in black apparel and face coverings and others who show up in everyday clothing to denounce far-right extremists and police militarization. There have also been various far-left activities in Seattle, including people who have spray-painted anarchist symbols on public property.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/antifa-protests-george-floyd.html

So basically, it walks like Antifa and quacks like Antifa, but it isn't Antifa.  Heck, even Antifa (in the last section above) said that the scale, intensity, and durability of the protests were far beyond anything they might dream of organizing.  Are we to believe that spontaneous, organic riots fit this description?  Something doesn't add up.

It appears that the machine was incredibly vested in gaslighting the public that the riots were very much spontaneous and organic, fueled by the sheer passion of the cause.

But, I realize I'm disparaging the very media machine that you hold sacrosanct, so I doubt our discussion will go very far.   

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I am not limited to the content of a lightly-trafficked message board..... I look at the nation, and the overall activity....and right now, thankfully....violence, intolerance and cancellation are the key tools used by those supporting Liberal stances. Time and again......on the more rare occasion that it arises on the right it is squashed, assailed and dealt with appropriately....when it happens on the left, well, we just have to understand....  

We still don't see eye to eye on this.    I think this thread is a great example of this, and I saw it on the other boards and all over as well.   Yes, the liberal MEDIA undercuts things like the violence in the, and of course parts of the party didn't say much.  People in real life or online I've interacted with?  Not a person was for that violence and though it was wrong.    The opposite is true for something like 1/6 - most people on the right undercut the police getting assualted and any of the violence that happened.  Just grandma's taking selfies, right?     For intolerance we need to look no further than trans and lbgtq issues for both sides.   Abortion?  Yep, we can talk about clinics getting bombed and death threats.  I don't think that is from the left.    I view it differently than most, but I see things like book "bans" and things like that as cancellation - both sides are fully on board with that and pushing out other viewpoints.   

[jerryskids 6,567]

9 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

HERE,   and just a small part from the beginning... 

Focus on Generating Revenue The City budgets for sizeable increases in municipal fines and fees each year, exhorts police and court staff to deliver those revenue increases, and closely monitors whether those increases are achieved. City officials routinely urge Chief Jackson to generate more revenue through enforcement. In March 2010, for instance, the City Finance Director wrote to Chief Jackson that “unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year. . . . Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall, it’s not an insignificant issue.” Similarly, in March 2013, the Finance Director wrote to the City Manager: “Court fees are anticipated to rise about 7.5%. I did ask the Chief if he thought the PD could deliver 10% increase. He indicated they could try.” The importance of focusing on revenue generation is communicated to FPD officers. Ferguson police officers from all ranks told us that revenue generation is stressed heavily within the police department, and that the message comes from City leadership. The evidence we reviewed supports this perception

 

Ok, but then do you believe that all cops can go where they want or do they have precincts?   So if you are an officer outside that main zone I speak of where a good chunk of the violence/crime/drugs are, and you are being pressured to deliver - who are you now stopping and looking for?  

Thanks.  I certainly question the "police for profit" approach, as it creates undesired incentives like you point out.  Is this widespread?

I don't know how different PDs handle the territories/precincts.  I technically live in the city of Phoenix, but it is a suburban section of relatively low crime.  I was once told that there is a single cruiser dedicated to our area of 80K+ people (this was a while back, we probably have two now!).  If I see three or four units at a scene, I know some ish is going down.  Anyway, back on topic, if Phoenix has a profit motive, I would find it hard to believe that the folks cruising my suburbia have the same "quota" as those in higher-crime areas.