Reply With Quote
Should have dedicated 40% of their budget to the cowards like Uvalde did.
this is how stupid democrats are as if you couldnt already tell with the complete failure of biden and the horrible shape our country is in,,,
Seattle Implodes After Defunding The Police (msn.com)
Should have dedicated 40% of their budget to the cowards like Uvalde did.
Tell it, Hemster.
Testify!!!
It's always re ed boomers who use commas for ellipses.
Not sure I see the correlation. Police don't prevent crime and few would want to live in a society where they could.
of course you don't
“We’ve had over a 95% increase in more shots fired, with a 171% increase in people being shot compared to last year,” Police Chief Adrian Diaz told our numb City Council recently. “And last year was one of the highest years we’ve had on record.”
The data shows violent crime rising so fast that 30 years of progress may be undone in a blink.
For most of the past two decades, Seattle had a steady violent crime rate of about 500 to 600 incidents each year per 100,000 in population – about half what it was in the 1980s. The big picture, sometimes hard to see, was that we’re a relatively safe place for a major city.
Last year though, it abruptly surged 20% to 721 crimes per 100,000 people – the highest since 2001, according to FBI records.
The first three months of this year have been even more of a throwback.
Aggravated assaults — which last year were already up 24% — are up another 33% in the first quarter of 2022, as compared to the first three months of 2021. That’s according to preliminary reports posted at the city’s open records portal.
Robberies are up 30% in 2022. Overall, violent crime is up 32% — from 1,051 incidents in the first three months of 2021 to 1,387 this year.
Crime ebbs and flows. But if it keeps flowing at this pace, the city would approach a violent crime rate of 900 per 100,000 people — a level of violence last seen in 1995.
Due to the backlash to the “defund the police” debacle, Seattle is now down 375 officers — putting the force at 1990s staffing levels, right along with the crime rate.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...30-years-back/
That's not responsive. Police don't prevent crime, they respond to it -- when they're not too busy jamming up ordinary citizens with misdemeanors faintly related to public safety, during discretionary stops.of course you don't
“We’ve had over a 95% increase in more shots fired, with a 171% increase in people being shot compared to last year,” Police Chief Adrian Diaz told our numb City Council recently. “And last year was one of the highest years we’ve had on record.”
The data shows violent crime rising so fast that 30 years of progress may be undone in a blink.
For most of the past two decades, Seattle had a steady violent crime rate of about 500 to 600 incidents each year per 100,000 in population – about half what it was in the 1980s. The big picture, sometimes hard to see, was that we’re a relatively safe place for a major city.
Last year though, it abruptly surged 20% to 721 crimes per 100,000 people – the highest since 2001, according to FBI records.
The first three months of this year have been even more of a throwback.
Aggravated assaults — which last year were already up 24% — are up another 33% in the first quarter of 2022, as compared to the first three months of 2021. That’s according to preliminary reports posted at the city’s open records portal.
Robberies are up 30% in 2022. Overall, violent crime is up 32% — from 1,051 incidents in the first three months of 2021 to 1,387 this year.
Crime ebbs and flows. But if it keeps flowing at this pace, the city would approach a violent crime rate of 900 per 100,000 people — a level of violence last seen in 1995.
Due to the backlash to the “defund the police” debacle, Seattle is now down 375 officers — putting the force at 1990s staffing levels, right along with the crime rate.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...30-years-back/
Williams and his colleagues, Aaron Chalfin, Benjamin Hansen, and Emily Weisburst, got motivated to answer questions like: What is the measurable value of adding a new police officer to patrol a city? Do additional officers prevent homicides? How many people do these officers arrest and for what? And how do bigger police forces affect Black communities?
They gathered data from the FBI and other public data sources for 242 cities between the years 1981 and 2018. They obtained figures on police employment, homicide rates, reported crimes, arrests, and more. And they used technically-savvy statistical techniques to estimate the effects of expanding the size of police forces on things like preventing homicides and increasing arrests (read their working paper for more depth, and, also spend a few hours reading about "instrumental variable" regression, which is pretty freaking genius).
The Impact Of One More Officer
Williams and his colleagues find adding a new police officer to a city prevents between 0.06 and 0.1 homicides, which means that the average city would need to hire between 10 and 17 new police officers to save one life a year. They estimate that costs taxpayers annually between $1.3 and $2.2 million. The federal government puts the value of a statistical life at around $10 million (Planet Money did a whole episode on how that number was chosen). So, Williams says, from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault.
Even more, Williams and his coauthors find that, in the average city, larger police forces result in Black lives saved at about twice the rate of white lives saved (relative to their percentage of the population). When you consider African Americans are much more likely to live in dense, poverty-stricken areas with high homicide rates — leading to more opportunities for police officers to potentially prevent victimization — that may help explain this finding.
We should note, however, that one broad, average statistic on one measure of policing outcomes says nothing about other potential problems with policing — such as excessive use of force, racial profiling, or other issues that remain top of mind as story after story of Black people getting killed, beaten, or mistreated by the police circulates in the media. But, Williams says, reducing the homicide rate and other serious crimes is certainly a benefit for everyone.
While they find serious crimes fall after the average city expands its police force, the economists find that arrests for serious crimes also fall. The simultaneous reduction of both serious crime and arrests for serious crime suggests it's not arrests that are driving the reduction. Instead, it suggests merely having more police officers around drives it. These findings are consistent with other research that finds concentrating police in "hotspot" crime areas appears to be an effective way to reduce crime.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...y-what-happens
Or, crime was going down for reasons unrelated to law enforcement.
Consider the lead-crime hypothesis.
https://www.niskanencenter.org/resea...-causes-crime/
Only pussies & assholes employ the grammar card.
I don't know about this. A police presence seems like it would cut down on crime in the area that they were present.
That may be, seems intuitive; people sitting on their porches may have a similar effect, eyes on the neighborhood.
Fact remains, little time is spent by police fighting crime. Police mainly churn out fines and fees related to discretionary stops.
80% of "crimes punished" are petty misdemeanors. Even with constant growth in police budgets, clearance rates and rate of solved crimes have been on a downward trajectory. Minor property crimes are barely investigated, let alone solved.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/68160...argets-the-poo
I think this is the way its supposed to work.
Neighborhood cops know all the kids and what they grow up to be.
Know the families. I know it works this way in England in smaller areas. Its more just being present. The "kids" (males 15-23) get moved into other areas of course were they cant be seen.
Of course they dont have the gun problem. But they have ridiculous alcohol problems.
They are of course mass murdering people with knifes regularly there. (actuallly I think I remember one Muslim guy got a sword and hacked at a bunch of people)
I would also say its much easier to get into a kerfuffle over there than here. Fists can be handy. And if you like to kick that can work.
Here's another correlation, popularized by Freakonomics.
https://law.stanford.edu/publication...t-two-decades/Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far. Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1% a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction and the broad hypothesis, while illuminating some previously unrecognized patterns of crime and arrests. We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.
Attributing a major rise in crime to one factor -- the police budget -- is tunnel vision at best, bad faith at worst.
All I got from that is Seattle PD got their feelings hurt and refused to do their job.
I don't disagree with any of that. It was only the comment, "police don't prevent crimes". Just making the point that if a cop is present, then I'm pretty certain that actually prevents crime in that particular area.
The reality is that it's all about budget and bringing in money. Taking it down to a base level, we have the technology to keep people from speeding. To some degree anyway. But there's no way some small town is going to install that tech when it means that half their budget (or more) might disappear.
to me, that's a good reason for defunding police. public safety enforcement isn't supposed to be bureaucratic make-work and fee-generation on the back of the community purportedly served.
a work slowdown by LE in the wake of 2020 chimes with concurrent narrative that holding police responsible for abusive, racist and unprofessional conduct makes their job impossible to do
Sure. But it is precisely that. I suppose the Catch 22 is that if you pull too many police off the streets, the criminals will know that. Agree that it takes a community effort but that takes convincing the community.
All this presumes a focus on enhancing public safety. Denver, CO has replaced police with trained social workers for mental health calls, with promising results. Punishment isn't the solution to everything.
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-ju...lice-violence/
Was there more?
Another correlation: welfare cuts
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/954451
While I agree that there are many cops that do as you say that does not mean that policing cannot or is not being done such that it prevents crime.
this is true. people are on their best behavior after just having seen a cop. nobody can say that they dont drive differently for at least a few minutes after having a police car roll by them
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
