Cops Shoot & Kill UNARMED Deaf, Mute Man During Traffic Stop [Video Report]

[240 is Back]

240 is voting for Gary Johnson.

correct,

[TuHolmes]

Right.

Again, sucks we can't create some agency or something that not only serves us - with the reporting and whatnot - but PROTECTS us as well. Not like these "occasional" crimestoppers we got now.

Why? What good would it do?

Crime doesn't run rampant as is. Why would you want more government?

[muscleman-2013]

Crime doesn't run rampant as is. Why would you want more government?

WEAK men almost invariably support bigger government,

[The Ugly]

Why? What good would it do?

Crime doesn't run rampant as is.

No shit. And cops probably have something to do with that.

Christ you're thick.

[TuHolmes]

No shit. And cops probably have something to do with that.

Christ you're thick.

No. Actually it has very little to do with police.

That's an entirely different topic though which we can dig into if you REALLY want to know. It's going to take quite awhile.

I'm not thick. I'm analytical. Something you seem to not be very keen on.

[Agnostic007]

Got me... I have never personally "needed" one.

I think you have to look at the reality of the police... They are not there to "protect" anything. They are not there to "stop" crime.

They are there to report on crime and to make people who commit crimes end up accountable for their actions.
They arrest people after acts have occurred. That is just the job, plain and simple.

I'm not saying that they are terrible or whatever, I'm just being real about what the function of police is.

Your statement is false. There are many many cases where cops have intervened in a crime in progress and stopped it. It's not even debatable. Why would you be so reckless in your comment, you're normally sharper than that

[Agnostic007]

No, I have made the exact same statements.

My statements were quite clear. They are not there to stop crime. You just implied your own reason to my statements which were not ONLY reporting, but still not STOPPING crime.

See, they are two different things.

You realize you are wrong in your interpretation of my statement, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

It's cool though. You have had to do that a few times.

You are ignoring the crime deterrent aspect that happens on a regular basis. A neighborhood is getting hit with burglaries. Crime analyst review the stats, gather the likely times, method, possible suspects, information goes out to the patrol supervisors, the special units and a Operations Plan is formulated with specific focus on the neighborhood to reduce the amount of burglaries... Arrests are often made off the intel and the burglaries decrease.  Happens with robbery by assaults, sexual assaults and any other crime of pattern. So yeah, there is empirical evidence that they stop crimes.   

[TuHolmes]

You are ignoring the crime deterrent aspect that happens on a regular basis. A neighborhood is getting hit with burglaries. Crime analyst review the stats, gather the likely times, method, possible suspects, information goes out to the patrol supervisors, the special units and a Operations Plan is formulated with specific focus on the neighborhood to reduce the amount of burglaries... Arrests are often made off the intel and the burglaries decrease.  Happens with robbery by assaults, sexual assaults and any other crime of pattern. So yeah, there is empirical evidence that they stop crimes.   

I can show you statistical evidence that shows that the police are roughly 10% of the overall reduction of crime.

That is quite small in the larger sense of the world.

Of the arrests, how many arrests are made "during" the act of the criminal act and not after? Your crime deterrent aspect is also patently false and I can show you those numbers as well.

Please show me your evidence.

Your statement is false. There are many many cases where cops have intervened in a crime in progress and stopped it. It's not even debatable. Why would you be so reckless in your comment, you're normally sharper than that

Please show me your "many many cases" compared to the number of arrests AFTER the fact. The numbers would hardly be in your favor.

You're right, it's not debatable as I have numbers on my side. Please show me yours. I can provide mine if you are so inclined.

[Agnostic007]

A popular method of addressing crime pattern is what is known as Compstat. It's a regular meeting of all leadership in the department to discuss current crime trends and what the Commanders are doing to address it. It is also when predicted crime patterns will start based on 3 to 5 years of data. We know when the ACL Festival is in town there will be an increase in burglary of vehicles, robbery by assaults and auto thefts. We know where they hit last year and so we have plans in place and deploy officers to those areas to reduce the number. So just reporting crimes that already happened are certainly part of the job, but the focus is on prevention and reducing the numbers each year. 

[Agnostic007]

I can show you statistical evidence that shows that the police are roughly 10% of the overall reduction of crime.

That is quite small in the larger sense of the world.

Of the arrests, how many arrests are made "during" the act of the criminal act and not after? Your crime deterrent aspect is also patently false and I can show you those numbers as well.

Please show me your evidence.

Please show me your "many many cases" compared to the number of arrests AFTER the fact. The numbers would hardly be in your favor.

You're right, it's not debatable as I have numbers on my side. Please show me yours. I can provide mine if you are so inclined.

Sorry, but you are arguing the earth is flat. It's to ridiculous a position to waste time proving it false. I lived the job for decades, and I've seen a ton of data and personal knowledge of countless times a crime was interrupted and the last time I looked at stats, my city was at a 5 year low on a variety of crimes, kinda meaning... we are impacting crime and reducing the numbers by being proactive

[TuHolmes]

Sorry, but you are arguing the earth is flat. It's to ridiculous a position to waste time proving it false. I lived the job for decades, and I've seen a ton of data and personal knowledge of countless times a crime was interrupted and the last time I looked at stats, my city was at a 5 year low on a variety of crimes, kinda meaning... we are impacting crime and reducing the numbers by being proactive

I have a ton of data as well.

Going back to when the reduction of crime actually started. So, I can completely prove my point. If you are unwilling to listen though, that's on you.

I expect that. Everyone wants to believe that their job provides meaning and value. Including police officers.

I expect nothing else... Unfortunately, that's not what the actual data will show.

Sorry dude.

[Agnostic007]

I have a ton of data as well.

Going back to when the reduction of crime actually started. So, I can completely prove my point. If you are unwilling to listen though, that's on you.

I expect that. Everyone wants to believe that their job provides meaning and value. Including police officers.

I expect nothing else... Unfortunately, that's not what the actual data will show.

Sorry dude.

ok, state your position, I don't want to misquote you, then post your data to support it. I'll read it

[TuHolmes]

ok, state your position, I don't want to misquote you, then post your data to support it. I'll read it

My position is that the police and their presence makes up a relatively small percentage in the overall reduction and lack of crime.

So, to be clear, you are claiming that the increased number of police and / or innovative policing strategies are why we have low crime today?

Is my above statement correct?