I assume you are white or Asian. Doesn't really matter, the point is that police interaction is just as, if not more likely to make tense situations worse instead of better.Sure, but figured since you quoted me and my experiences you were making an assumption on me being white.
Right, everyday thousands of police interactions, majority are worse because of it.I assume you are white or Asian. Doesn't really matter, the point is that police interaction is just as, if not more likely to make tense situations worse instead of better.
Waffle House interview -
Don't start none, won't be none.Was watching customer wars on HULU. Customer at the drive through throws her drink at the cashier. Cashier produces a pistol and opens fire. How's that for service?
Well for starters I am talking about TENSE situations, not run-of-the-mill traffic stops. You know, actual active crime scenes: robbery and the like.Right, everyday thousands of police interactions, majority are worse because of it.
This is you moving two goal posts, nice.Well for starters I am talking about TENSE situations, not run-of-the-mill traffic stops. You know, actual active crime scenes: robbery and the like.
For fun, I tried google:
View attachment 93007
Once again, police are not the answer to crime.
Re-read my initial post to you. Zero posts have been moved. I will caution you that if you want to start down the logical fallacy path I will light you up, starting with the strawman in your initial post.This is you moving two goal posts, nice.
Go for it. I'll be standing on some kindling and waiting. Prove the claim you made and be specific about it.Re-read my initial post to you. Zero posts have been moved. I will caution you that if you want to start down the logical fallacy path I will light you up, starting with the strawman in your initial post.
Okay...Go for it. I'll be standing on some kindling and waiting. Prove the claim you made and be specific about it.
Nobody said all/most poor people must be criminals. This is a straw man. You cannot defeat the factual argument that increases in poverty lead to increases in crime, so you construct an easily defeated straw man of "all/most poor people must be criminals," knock it down, and pat yourself on the back. Congratulations.Ah yes, most/all crime is due to being poor, thus all/most poor people must be criminals. Noted. Feel better about yourself having posted this and solved the worlds problems?
Because that is their job! Imagine if we all stopped doing our jobs because we didn't like how everyone else was doing their job down the line. We would all be fired, yet you seem to think it's acceptable behavior for cops.Crime in areas of CA has gotten out of control because the threat of repercussions has evaporated. Why do cops want to put themselves in harms way knowing whoever they arrest (again in these areas with high crime with such places like Walgreens, In-N-Out burger and this example thread) never see jail time?
This is called anecdotal evidence.No thanks. I've had numerous encounters over my life span with police, none were "bad". Worse were getting stupid speeding tickets.
Help me out here:Okay...
Nobody said all/most poor people must be criminals. This is a straw man. You cannot defeat the factual argument that increases in poverty lead to increases in crime, so you construct an easily defeated straw man of "all/most poor people must be criminals," knock it down, and pat yourself on the back. Congratulations.
Because that is their job! Imagine if we all stopped doing our jobs because we didn't like how everyone else was doing their job down the line. We would all be fired, yet you seem to think it's acceptable behavior for cops.
This is called anecdotal evidence.
Underlying causes of what exactly was the point here, which was what my quote was referencing.America will never properly address economic inequality, and in many cases, general systemic in justice both judicially, socially, educationally, and economically, which are all the underlying causes of crime. There will always be crime but until those things are addressed, the overall situation will not get better.
Say it with me now: fuck the police. If your life depends on the police, the chances are you are proper fucked. Chances are also high that they will make any situation worse. Y'all need to get your heads out of your asses right quick.
You fix crime by fixing the underlying social issues that cause crime to be attractive. People who have a stable life typically avoid resorting to criminal activity because they have too much to lose.
Yes, it's kind of hard to stop an act that could take as few as 30s when unless you know they are actually right there as it happens. Unless you know you have faster than light speed to react to something. Are you being serious right now trying to make this a point?As for proving my claims, let's start with what the data shows:
According to this police violence results in over 1000 deaths per year:
Police Can Make a Crisis Worse. The Public Needs Alternatives in an Emergency.
What's needed is not more funding for policing but more funding for alternatives to police responses.truthout.org
Keep in mind it is notoriously difficult to get reliable stats considering how often police cover up their terrible behavior, so any data is going to be heavily skewed in police favor.
You are not communicating effectively here. That aside, yes poor people are more prone to crime. MUCH more prone to crime. That does not mean that most or all poor people are criminals. You get how that's different, right?Help me out here:
Underlying causes of what exactly was the point here, which was what my quote was referencing.
I don't need to "defeat" anything; and thanks for shitting on your own point here. I'm confused now, you state yourself increases in poverty lead to increases in crime, so if I *checks notes* use logic you are openly stating that poor people are more prone to crime then those more fortunate? Yes/no maybe?
There is a difference between being shitty at your job and outright refusing to do your job. Do you see how you are having trouble staying on target here? On top of that, just because you think the DA is bad at their job doesn't make it so. Maybe the DA is actually a good DA and you just don't actually understand all the details.It's also the job of the DA to traditionally back the police force when it comes to pretty cut and dry crimes. But yet here we are, lots of people do their jobs shitty, but again using your own statements why are you even stating this?
As I mentioned, data is going to be hard to find. However, many examples can be found of police making situations worse, and thus my original statement that the chances of police making things worse are high stands. It's not my fault if you interpret high as greater than 50% (ie: a majority). I never said or implied a majority. That's you constructing another straw man.Yes anecdotal evidence, I'm still waiting on your evidence to back up anything here
Yes I'm making it a point. You've implied (stated?) that backing/supporting police is the answer to rising crime. You just admitted that police can't really stop crime in most cases, especially cases where it really counts (saving lives or property).Yes, it's kind of hard to stop an act that could take as few as 30s when unless you know they are actually right there as it happens. Unless you know you have faster than light speed to react to something. Are you being serious right now trying to make this a point?
This isn't a rebuttal. This is you not liking data that suggests your opinion is wrong. If you'd like to point out how the data is wrong or being interpreted incorrectly, have at it. Just saying "biased" is not a compelling argument.Ah yes, look at this proof in this opinion piece that links to (hey your favorite, at best anecdotal evidence) other opinion pieces but no actual studies or references to said studies.
There was hyperbole in my initial post, but again you are making assumptions here on being poor and crime. Maybe being poor and doing a particular TYPE of crime is more overlapping, but being poor doesn't make someone more prone to crime. Because then you'd need to be specific and state what is "more" crime, number of acts, $ amount in damages, how many people effected or what? What's more crime, someone doing petty theft often or someone skimming credit cards or lying on their tax returns?You are not communicating effectively here. That aside, yes poor people are more prone to crime. MUCH more prone to crime. That does not mean that most or all poor people are criminals. You get how that's different, right?
There is a difference between being shitty at your job and outright refusing to do your job. Do you see how you are having trouble staying on target here? On top of that, just because you think the DA is bad at their job doesn't make it so. Maybe the DA is actually a good DA and you just don't actually understand all the details.
As I mentioned, data is going to be hard to find. However, many examples can be found of police making situations worse, and thus my original statement that the chances of police making things worse are high stands. It's not my fault if you interpret high as greater than 50% (ie: a majority). I never said or implied a majority. That's you constructing another straw man.
No I stated the evaporating repercussions as a reason for rising crime. If there is no punishment to crime, what do you think will happen with crime, it will go up or down?Yes I'm making it a point. You've implied (stated?) that backing/supporting police is the answer to rising crime. You just admitted that police can't really stop crime in most cases, especially cases where it really counts (saving lives or property).
This isn't a rebuttal. This is you not liking data that suggests your opinion is wrong. If you'd like to point out how the data is wrong or being interpreted incorrectly, have at it. Just saying "biased" is not a compelling argument.
Wow now who is backpedaling? Yes hyperbole in the form of a straw man. You asked for me to call out your logical fallacies and I did. If you want to continue arguing that increasing poverty doesn't increase crime rates, go for it. I won't bother debating that topic further because it is batshit insane. There are mountains of data showing poverty leads to crime.There was hyperbole in my initial post, but again you are making assumptions here on being poor and crime. Maybe being poor and doing a particular TYPE of crime is more overlapping, but being poor doesn't make someone more prone to crime. Because then you'd need to be specific and state what is "more" crime, number of acts, $ amount in damages, how many people effected or what? What's more crime, someone doing petty theft often or someone skimming credit cards or lying on their tax returns?
No, they are refusing to do their jobs, if we accept the premise that part of their job is to go into dangerous situations (your words) to get things under control and they are refusing to go into dangerous situations to get thing under control.The cops aren't refusing to do their jobs, they are just doing it differently and apparently not to your approval. They can do other things. I'm not alone in thinking the DA's are bad, the population they serve that are recalling them speak loud enough.
You are confused. I can and did substantiate my position. You just misinterpreted my position.Yes, lets continue to debate something you can't substantiate, brilliant.
No I stated the evaporating repercussions as a reason for rising crime. If there is no punishment to crime, what do you think will happen with crime, it will go up or down?
Hey look more goal post moving.
That first link has a link to a report with data. Did you miss that?Lmao, not liking opinion pieces or by your own criticism, anecdotal evidence with no backing hard data is "biased" now. Hahaha
You keep shitting on your own point. When it comes to crime, poverty and what I have already state.Wow now who is backpedaling? Yes hyperbole in the form of a straw man. You asked for me to call out your logical fallacies and I did. If you want to continue arguing that increasing poverty doesn't increase crime rates, go for it. I won't bother debating that topic further because it is batshit insane. There are mountains of data showing poverty leads to crime.
No, they are refusing to do their jobs, if we accept the premise that part of their job is to go into dangerous situations (your words) to get things under control and they are refusing to go into dangerous situations to get thing under control.
You are confused. I can and did substantiate my position. You just misinterpreted my position.
Okay, you are remaining willfully ignorant at this point. Have a nice day and go Niners!You keep shitting on your own point. When it comes to crime, poverty and what I have already state.
Prove they are refusing to "do their jobs".
You substantiated nothing, other than making statements that you said can't be verified, again brilliant.
Well if Google AI says it's true, it must be. Case closed.View attachment 93019
I would never argue that is has no effect. It has little effect and often the downsides outweigh the benefits.
That first link has a link to a report with data. Did you miss that?