Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

[Alex_Krycek]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 Violent crime rates are neither equivalent to not evidence of citizens being unable to walk safely down the street. Your hyperbole does a disservice to your otherwise reasonable points. 

Really?  Tell that to the people who actually live in these communities.  To you they're just statistics; to them they're a stark and urgent reality.

I suggest you watch the show I referenced: "Flint Town" to see how bad an American city can get.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You seem to be under the impression that the police commit more violence than actual criminals.  This is an exaggeration that isn't supported by the facts.

Straw man.  I never suggested the police shouldn't assume innocence first.

You still haven't addressed the issue of violent crime that occurs on a daily basis.  You're operating under the somewhat naive assumption that if police just "leave well enough alone" then violent criminals will just play nice.  It doesn't work that way.  Police have to be proactive in shutting crime down before it happens.  More robust social policies would be a great long term solution, but for now local communities where violence regularly occurs want the police there to mitigate it.

Why are you so fixated, with the idea that you can control people with force? When it's so much easier, and less dangerous (to everyone), with persuasion?

Instead of attacking what I didn't say, please try addressing what I did say; and maybe answer a queation or two, I've asked a few... 

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Really?  Tell that to the people who actually live in these communities.  To you they're just statistics; to them they're a stark and urgent reality.

I suggest you watch the show I referenced: "Flint Town" to see how bad an American city can get.

So you reply to an accusation of hyperbole, with hyperbole.

You seem to get most of it, given what you've agreed to in this thread, please help me understand why do you find it so difficult to let go of the illusion of control (being a thing)?

History is choc-o-block full of example's.

You can't control what people believe with violence and chains, but you can persuade them to believe something else... 😉

Edited July 14, 2020 by dimreepr

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Really?  Tell that to the people who actually live in these communities.  To you they're just statistics; to them they're a stark and urgent reality.

It's a legitimate question. How about answering it?

Some fraction of these crimes happen in the home, and have nothing to do with being able to safely walk down the street. What is the threshold value of crime rate for being safe to walk down the street?  

[Alex_Krycek]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's a legitimate question. How about answering it?

Some fraction of these crimes happen in the home, and have nothing to do with being able to safely walk down the street. What is the threshold value of crime rate for being safe to walk down the street?  

I did answer it.  There are many communities where people are afraid to walk in their own neighborhoods, especially at night, due to a high frequency of robberies, murders, rapes, etc.  You'd have to be fairly insulated not to understand this fact about the US.  

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Area54 said:

I did not get that impression from @dimreepr's posts. He seemed to be holding the view, which I share, that those charged with upholding the law must be scrupulous in following it meticulously themselves. This must not only be a matter of following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law also. Not only should there be no bending of the rules, but every effort should be made to be demonstrably fair and equitable in discharge of their duties. I am not sure how you have misread dimreepr's stance (I hope I have not).

You have not, nice post +1.

7 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I did answer it.  There are many communities where people are afraid to walk in their own neighborhoods, especially at night, due to a high frequency of robberies, murders, rapes, etc.  You'd have to be fairly insulated not to understand this fact about the US.  

Are you suggesting the police give them a personal escort?

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I did answer it.  There are many communities where people are afraid to walk in their own neighborhoods, especially at night, due to a high frequency of robberies, murders, rapes, etc.  You'd have to be fairly insulated not to understand this fact about the US.  

You cited violent crime statistics without showing any correlation to feeling safe, so that does not answer the question.

You also didn't address my question of what value it becomes safe.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You also didn't address my question of what value it becomes safe.

"What value it becomes safe"? 

Please clarify your question / statement.  

----------

Here is a poll done in 2014 about how safe certain groups feel.  Roughly a third of Americans feel unsafe walking in their own communities.  Notably, 48% of young people (18 - 29) say there is an area within a mile of their residence that they feel unsafe walking at night.  

The study's conclusion:

_{"While the percentage of Americans saying they do not feel safe walking alone within a mile of their home at night has remained steady over the past decade, there has been a considerable shift in Americans' views on this question over the past 30 years. While falling crime rates have not necessarily affected Americans' perceptions of crime on a national level, they have been felt in neighborhoods and communities across the country.}

_{Nonetheless, women are among the groups that feel the least safe, suggesting the benefits of falling crime rates have not been evenly felt by all. Other groups, such as the young and lower-income individuals, are also more likely to worry about their own safety."}

 

 

Source:  https://news.gallup.com/poll/179558/not-feel-safe-walking-night-near-home.aspx

Edited July 14, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

"What value it becomes safe"? 

Please clarify your question / statement.  

At what value of "violent crimes per 10,000 population" do you consider it safe?

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

----------

Here is a poll done in 2014 about how safe certain groups feel.  Roughly a third of Americans feel unsafe walking in their own communities.  Notably, 48% of young people (18 - 29) say there is an area within a mile of their residence that they feel unsafe walking at night.  

The study's conclusion:

_{"While the percentage of Americans saying they do not feel safe walking alone within a mile of their home at night has remained steady over the past decade, there has been a considerable shift in Americans' views on this question over the past 30 years. While falling crime rates have not necessarily affected Americans' perceptions of crime on a national level, they have been felt in neighborhoods and communities across the country.}

_{Nonetheless, women are among the groups that feel the least safe, suggesting the benefits of falling crime rates have not been evenly felt by all. Other groups, such as the young and lower-income individuals, are also more likely to worry about their own safety."}

 

 

Source:  https://news.gallup.com/poll/179558/not-feel-safe-walking-night-near-home.aspx

I notice that nowhere do they cite crime statistics. Also that a higher percentage of people in the last two decades feel safer than they did in the 70s and 80s

(also, as to the survey methods...I have questions)

[Alex_Krycek]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

At what value of "violent crimes per 10,000 population" do you consider it safe?

 

I notice that nowhere do they cite crime statistics. Also that a higher percentage of people in the last two decades feel safer than they did in the 70s and 80s

This poll shows that one third of Americans have felt unsafe in their own neighborhoods for over 50 years.  The point about safety being a legitimate concern for a significant portion of Americans as well as the fact that there are extremely violent cities has been sufficiently made.  

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

(also, as to the survey methods...I have questions)

This was a Gallup poll.  I think we can safely rely on them to conduct a proper survey.  

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Also that a higher percentage of people in the last two decades feel safer than they did in the 70s and 80s

And then after a decline in the 90s it fluctuates at between 30-35% until the present day.  

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why are you so fixated, with the idea that you can control people with force? When it's so much easier, and less dangerous (to everyone), with persuasion?

Not sure where you get the idea that I'm "fixated" on controlling people with force.  Seems like more straw-manning on your part.  If it were up to me we'd function like Sweden or Norway.  However such a long term transition will take many years and crime is an exigency that exists now, and won't go away on its own.

You continue to think that asking violent criminals nicely to "please stop what they're doing" is a realistic approach.  That's an unrealistic assumption.

Quote

You seem to get most of it, given what you've agreed to in this thread, please help me understand why do you find it so difficult to let go of the illusion of control (being a thing)?

So I suppose you're fine with the criminals controlling other people?  Because that what will happen if the police aren't there to stop them.  This notion espoused by you and the anarchist fellow that everything will magically solve itself if government goes away is extremely naive.  The problem lies with people. 

Human beings are violent.  Human beings seek to dominate and control others.  If we had no police then criminals would immediately fill the power vacuum and form a mafiocracy, as they have in so many instances in the past and do in other nations with no stable government.  

Unless criminals are as polite as you assume and courteously acquiesce to your gentle admonitions.  (But then again, they probably wouldn't be criminals if they did that, would they?)

Quote

History is choc-o-block full of example's.

You can't control what people believe with violence and chains, but you can persuade them to believe something else... 😉

Now who's being hyperbolic?  🙄

Edited July 14, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This poll shows that one third of Americans have felt unsafe in their own neighborhoods for over 50 years.  The point about safety being a legitimate concern for a significant portion of Americans as well as the fact that there are extremely violent cities has been sufficiently made.  

This was a Gallup poll.  I think we can safely rely on them to conduct a proper survey. 

Gallup itself is telling us that these results may not be reliable. They tested just over 1000 people all across the country. Fine, that gives you the 4% margin of error, it's (largely) statistical. But that doesn't guarantee it's free from bias.

They polled people spread out in different time zones, meaning that any given city, town or village may have only gotten one call, and many got none. There are ~300 medium-size cities (pop>100,000) and a few with a million or more. There are almost 15,000 smaller cities and towns. They only polled a small fraction of places.

What you're hoping for is that these people they reached are representative of the country. Are they? At any given location, there are only one or two respondents to the poll - this may very well not be representative.

Let me ask this: if you call in the evening, who is more likely to be at home: the person scared to go out, or the person not scared to go out? That's not going to bias land-line results?

If the calls were random, who is more likely to get a call, a person in a small town, or a person in a big city? Is the safety factor the same? Central Park in NYC is famous for being unsafe after dark How many people live within 1 mile of the park? Half a million? Does that skew the results at all?  

 

 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The point about safety being a legitimate concern for a significant portion of Americans as well as the fact that there are extremely violent cities has been sufficiently made. 

You've shifted the goalposts, though. 

Your initial comment: "There will always be a need for police, especially in the current situation where citizens CAN'T safely walk down the street."

You said, "citizens CAN'T safely walk down the street." When challenged, you submitted violent crime statistics. When challenged on those and asked what threshold of violent crime does/does not allow one to walk safely down a street, you shifted to "people FEEL unsafe."

Okay, so what? Lots of racists "FEEL" unsafe when walking near a black person in the grocery store. That doesn't mean they ARE unsafe. 

Your original point was crap, and the updated moved goalposts version isn't much better. 

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You continue to think that asking violent criminals nicely to "please stop what they're doing" is a realistic approach.  That's an unrealistic assumption.

I agree with you that this is an unrealistic assumption. Where I think we may differ, however, is in the idea that every single cop in every single neighborhood and every single experience level needs to be armed and ready to deal with these folks at every second of every day, as opposed to specialized forces who are called in and only engaged in the rare situations where they're needed.

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So I suppose you're fine with the criminals controlling other people?  Because that what will happen if the police aren't there to stop them. 

I'm pretty sure police are not the primary thing preventing this from happening. Human nature is. Most humans are actually rather cooperative. There are clearly important exceptions, but a huge part of the reason our species has enjoyed success is our nature to help one another and our tendency to follow group norms.

As I said, important (and regional) exceptions exist, but I struggle to accept your premise that police are the only thing stopping criminals from controlling others and driving us into a Mad Max dystopian hellscape.

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

SOME Human beings are violent.  SOME Human beings seek to dominate and control others.

There. FTFY

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If we had no police then criminals would immediately fill the power vacuum and form a mafiocracy

We seem to disagree in a fundamental way about human nature. This seems to drive most of our disagreements on the topic of policing.  That's okay and you're clearly welcome to your opinion, just thought I'd point it out. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

You've shifted the goalposts, though. 

Not really.  I provided supporting data to back up my original point.  

Quote

Okay, so what? Lots of racists "FEEL" unsafe when walking near a black person in the grocery store. That doesn't mean they ARE unsafe. 

I'm not talking about racists.  I'm referring to people of color, women, and young people who live in these communities.  They are the ones calling for more effective police.  They are the ones who feel unsafe.   

Quote

Your initial comment: "There will always be a need for police, especially in the current situation where citizens CAN'T safely walk down the street."

You said, "citizens CAN'T safely walk down the street." When challenged, you submitted violent crime statistics. When challenged on those and asked what threshold of violent crime does/does not allow one to walk safely down a street, you shifted to "people FEEL unsafe."

Quote

Your original point was crap, and the updated moved goalposts version isn't much better. 

Is your nit-picking game of semantics that much better?  

1 hour ago, iNow said:

There. FTFY

And what do you know, those few criminals, when left unchecked, dominate and control those around them.     

Edited July 14, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[ahmet]

I am only responding to the title (nothing else,because I have not read any else comments under this thread)

while it is interesting ..it also seems rational. because imo everyone believes that they deserve it:

though, it is interesting because here in turkey ,anymore, one teacher's salary is not higer than even one security staff who has high school degree. 

all teachers here have to hold at least BSc or BE degree. what is more according to forthcoming or existing procedures , this will not be enough. 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by ahmet
spelling failures

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Is your nit-picking game of semantics that much better?  

That appears to be a concession that:

•  you have moved the goalposts 
• such an action lacks integrity

Your arguments would carry more conviction if you could turn down the burning outrage a little. Merely a suggestion.

[Alex_Krycek]

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

That appears to be a concession that:

•  you have moved the goalposts 
• such an action lacks integrity

Neither, actually.  

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

Your arguments would carry more conviction if you could turn down the burning outrage a little. Merely a suggestion.

That there is "outrage" is your subjective interpretation.  It's easy to read into things when contextual cues such as tone of voice, body language, etc are not present.  

We're having a debate.  That is all.  

[Area54]

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Neither, actually.  

It definitely doesn't read that way.

9 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

That there is "outrage" is your subjective interpretation. 

Based upon a very high count of negative adjectives. Those are typically associated with arguments that are closer to the hysterical rather than the objective end of the spectrum.

 

11 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's easy to read into things when contextual cues such as tone of voice, body language, etc are not present.  

Which is why it is a good idea to choose ones words carefully.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I'm not talking about racists. 

I know. It was an analogy. I’m stunningly bad at them so it’s unsurprising you missed it. 

 

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Is your nit-picking game of semantics that much better?

The word you’re looking for is pedantic.

Just to clarify, are you saying:

1) People CAN’T safely walk down the street without police present anywhere in all of the 50 US states

2) People CAN’T safely walk down the street without police present, but only in some areas

3) People FEEL LIKE they can’t walk safely down the street without police present anywhere in all of the 50 US states

4) People FEEL LIKE they can’t walk safely down the street without police present, but only in some areas

5) Violent crime data SUGGESTS people can’t walk down the street without police present anywhere in all of the 50 US states

6) Violent crime data SUGGESTS people can’t walk down the street without police present, but only in some areas

7) Something similar to one of the items above, but police presence isn’t the relevant variable 

Or... Something else?

Asking because you said, “There will always be a need for police, especially in the current situation where citizens CAN'T safely walk down the street...”

... and you seemed to use it to argue that fewer police or fewer physical response options for them like new martial arts techniques or additional non lethal toys would lead to some sort of dystopian hellscape where we’re defending grandmas house with a spiked baseball bat and 50-cal. 

[Alex_Krycek]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

It definitely doesn't read that way.

Based upon a very high count of negative adjectives. Those are typically associated with arguments that are closer to the hysterical rather than the objective end of the spectrum.

Which is why it is a good idea to choose ones words carefully.

That's fine.  You're free to interpret what you read any way you like.  I've made an attempt to clarify already; you're not interested in that.  C'est la vie.  

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

I know. It was an analogy. I’m stunningly bad at them so it’s unsurprising you missed it. 

 

The word you’re looking for is pedantic.

Just to clarify, are you saying:

1) People CAN’T safely walk down the street without police present anywhere in all of the 50 US states

2) People CAN’T safely walk down the street without police present, but only in some areas

3) People FEEL LIKE they can’t walk safely down the street without police present anywhere in all of the 50 US states

4) People FEEL LIKE they can’t walk safely down the street without police present, but only in some areas

5) Violent crime data SUGGESTS people can’t walk down the street without police present anywhere in all of the 50 US states

6) Violent crime data SUGGESTS people can’t walk down the street without police present, but only in some areas

7) Something similar to one of the items above, but police presence isn’t the relevant variable 

Or... Something else?

The survey I posted shows results from over 50 years of polling.  Between 30-40% of Americans consistently reported that they don't feel safe walking in their own neighborhoods at night.  To me that's conclusive enough.  

Quote

... and you seemed to use it to argue that fewer police or fewer physical response options for them like new martial arts techniques or additional non lethal toys would lead to some sort of dystopian hellscape where we’re defending grandmas house with a spiked baseball bat and 50-cal. 

More hyperbole and exaggerations.

My posts were about increasing funding / training for officers so they can more effectively deal with violence when confronted with it.  Increasing discipline and training while under pressure through the use of martial arts training would be an effective safeguard against irrational behavior under pressure.  There's also the issue of increased accountability, which we haven't addressed yet.

6 hours ago, ahmet said:

I am only responding to the title (nothing else,because I have not read any else comments under this thread)

while it is interesting ..it also seems rational. because imo everyone believes that they deserve it:

though, it is interesting because here in turkey ,anymore, one teacher's salary is not higer than even one security staff who has high school degree. 

all teachers here have to hold at least BSc or BE degree. what is more according to forthcoming or existing procedures , this will not be enough. 

 

Interesting.  What is the general attitude towards the police in Turkey?  Are they respected overall?  How much do they make, specifically?   Would you say their job is dangerous, as it is in some cities in the US, or less dangerous?

Edited July 15, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The survey I posted shows results from over 50 years of polling.  Between 30-40% of Americans consistently reported that they don't feel safe walking in their own neighborhoods at night.  To me that's conclusive enough.  

Okay, so basically item #3 above, with the new variable if “nighttime” included, and without the addition of police presence. Got it. 

Have you ever considered that some people are just scared of the dark and that this has little to do with actual danger?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting things are perfectly safe nor that there aren’t real dangers, just that your claims are not as rooted in facts as you seem to think. You’re own biases are coloring your stance (and, in fairness, my biases do the same to me).

Also, did you notice your Gallop survey didn’t ask how the presence of police... specifically the pretense of police with martial arts training and new non-lethal toys... would affect those feelings of being unsafe at nighttime walking down the street, yet that’s the argument you’re attempting to support with your survey link?

Hell, sometimes I feel unsafe walking around the woods at night; and I promise you having a cop there wouldn’t make me feel any better. 😂 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

My posts were about increasing funding / training for officers so they can more effectively deal with violence when confronted with it.  Increasing discipline and training while under pressure through the use of martial arts training would be an effective safeguard against irrational behavior under pressure.  There's also the issue of increased accountability, which we haven't addressed yet.

Then let me address this head on. More funding isn’t required for this. They already receive tons of funding and they could use it for more training in better ways already today. It doesn’t require new revenue injections to do what you propose. Hiring a sensei from the Cobra Kai dojo down the street to train some beat cops doesn’t require a ton of extra cash. 

Extra money also doesn’t equate to extra accountability, nor does extra training equate to extra discipline. It may help, but you’re building castles made of sand IMO if you think this will kill this weed at the root.  I say this as a firm believer in the benefits of martial arts training and discipline. 

You’re advocating additional expenditures to already balance sheet bloated police departments, and that IMO is well intentioned, but misguided. If we’re to spend more money, the higher ROI very clearly comes from increased social services and engagement on the mental health side of this equation. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by iNow

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Unless criminals are as polite as you assume and courteously acquiesce to your gentle admonitions.  (But then again, they probably wouldn't be criminals if they did that, would they?)

Please don't just gainsay everything I say, but at least you're consistent, I've never said that nor even vaguely implied it. I said/implied, what I think is basis of justice, "innocent until proven guilty", so unless your proposing to populate the police with a version of Judge Dredd, their JOB is to present the suspect to the court's, with an actual judge.

20 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You continue to think that asking violent criminals nicely to "please stop what they're doing" is a realistic approach.

sigh 🙄, I continue to suggest:

1. you don't know they're violent criminal's before you talk to them.

2. they try that approach before they shoot or other wise try to kill them.

3. they discharge they're duties in a fair non biased way.

4. all of the above can be taught without additional funds, or a resident Shifu.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by dimreepr

[ahmet]

12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Interesting.  What is the general attitude towards the police in Turkey?  Are they respected overall?  How much do they make, specifically?   

I think folk likes them. Some specific actions may make the process negatively mysetrious. but in total yes,we like polices. I do not know the polices' exact salary (but I can make simple search for it) to me I think one police is taking two times more than a teacher. (note I shall try to find one police's salary from search and calculation tools)

 

Quote

Would you say their job is dangerous, as it is in some cities in the US, or less dangerous?

I think yes. meanwhile,this is another reason to think that they deserve it. I have not lived in us so I cannot make a comparison really

 

according to simple search I found approximately 6.000 t they get paid but this is with one explanation , as I understand some other (side) payments and shift hours are not added. a teacher gets paid 4360 t (note the above quantity means lowest polices' salary , 4360 means teachers lowest salary but one teacher cannot take more than 6000 t (max) (max hours weekly for tecahers here is: 30 (in some specific cases may be up to 40 ) hours per/week )

Edited July 15, 2020 by ahmet

[MigL]

I'm on vacation but I had to respond...

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

1. you don't know they're violent criminal's before you talk to them.

If they have a bat, knife, gun, any other weapon that can be used against you ( vehicles are sometimes also used ), or if they try to take the police officer's weapon away from him, they have made their choice, they intend to hurt someone.
That is the definition of violent offender.

You go ahead and talk to them first, Dim; me, I will put my safety, and that of those I care about, first.
If you don't intend to do violence you should not have a weapon !

Edited July 15, 2020 by MigL

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you don't intend to do violence you should not have a weapon !

This is not an accurate generalization. I always have my knife with me, and have guns in the home or when hunting / camping. Just can't have either at the airport or government building.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, MigL said:

If they have a bat, knife, gun, any other weapon that can be used against you ( vehicles are sometimes also used ), or if they try to take the police officer's weapon away from him, they have made their choice, they intend to hurt someone.
That is the definition of violent offender.

And you know that beforehand? (If you see a guy with a set of golf club's, he's often going to play a game of golf.).

15 hours ago, MigL said:

You go ahead and talk to them first, Dim; me, I will put my safety, and that of those I care about, first.
If you don't intend to do violence you should not have a weapon !

Do you really not see how damaging that aproach is? 

Or how easily it can backfire and actually endanger you and yours?

If the only way to counter my argument, is to strawman it; I can only imagine the premise is sound.

[swansont]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm on vacation but I had to respond...

If they have a bat, knife, gun, any other weapon that can be used against you ( vehicles are sometimes also used ), or if they try to take the police officer's weapon away from him, they have made their choice, they intend to hurt someone.
That is the definition of violent offender.

You go ahead and talk to them first, Dim; me, I will put my safety, and that of those I care about, first.
If you don't intend to do violence you should not have a weapon !

In the US one can be licensed to carry a firearm and there are a number of places that have “open carry” laws, so from a legal standpoint, I don’t think you can say that carrying a weapon can be construed to imply intent to do harm. (not that the police follow this; see e.g. Philando Castile)