5 ms·

>And what about the victims of false imprisonment due to a wholly corrupt police department? What about them? False imprisonment is a problem, but not at the s

>And what about the victims of false imprisonment due to a wholly corrupt police department? What about them? False imprisonment is a problem, but not at the scale of the crime in that city. Baltimore had 350 homicides and 2000+ robberies/assaults/rapes, and thousands more thefts and property crimes [1]. Let me pose a question to you: At what point do we start focusing on victims of crime again? All I hear is about police reform, and about criminal rights. Who stands up for the good people living in the violent neighborhoods of St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore etc.? When will the focus be set on the victims in those neighborhoods? Do the people there have a right to not be victimized? Who enforces those rights? A 7 year old girl was killed by a stray bullet in Atlanta recently[2]? What is the ACLU doing for her, her family, and other such families? >working a tough beat does not excuse the malfeasance endemic to the Baltimore PD. Maybe the fact that Baltimore cops are forced to deal with the worst of humanity in one of the most violent cities in the world plays a role here? Maybe you need to lower the crime rate before you can expect policing to improve? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Baltimore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Baltimore [2] https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/latest-loss-from-atlantas-rise-in-deadly-violence-a-7-year-old-girl/QBIZT7KZFBABRCGZQOHNGK5OUM/ https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/latest-loss-from-atlantas-ris...

birdyrooster 6y ago
The only thing the police provide victims is a deterrence for criminals and for some, perhaps, a sense of justice and closure. Beyond that, there is nothing more the police can do for victims. Victims need laws passed to help their communities from turning to crime in the first place or laws that decriminalize so called victimless crimes. Part of those changes means funding schools and small businesses and tax abatement for those in most need. So now, while we are talking about funding we look at the city budget. Lo and behold, police departments take a lot (in some cases a plurality) of total tax revenue that could be used to help victims in ways beyond deterrence. That is why we talk about defunding police. That is the context in which we are focusing on victims. The police create many victims on their own and currently have no internal way to fix that problem.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >When talking about policing, the only thing it provides victims is deterrence for criminals. Beyond that, there is nothing more the police can do for victims. What about taking criminals out of the community and locking them away in prison? Would that not help? Because that's what this surveillance program would do. It allows the police to view footage after the crime occurred and track down the perp. It wouldn't help that victim, but it would prevent the next one. >Lo and behold, police departments take a lot of tax money that could be used to help victims in ways beyond deterrence and so that is why we talk about defunding police. False choice. You don't need to defund the police to fund whatever program you want. And you make it seem like there is some magic social program just waiting to be funded that would solve criminality but the evil police budget is what prevents it from being implemented. As if!
  - birdyrooster 6y ago
    I never said it was the only way. You made it a false choice in your mind. Locking people up is a deterrence but it creates many criminals by putting them in depraved conditions for extended periods of time, then depriving them of employability and then as an insult, charging monthly fees for probation or other post-incarceration monitoring. The last thing I want to point out is how often the police victimize people and create new victims. It's incredibly common.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >I never said it was the only way. You wrote: "police departments take a lot (in some cases a plurality) of total tax revenue that could be used to help victims in ways beyond deterrence. That is why we talk about defunding police." Where is the evidence that the police budget is what is preventing social programs to be funded? That is a fiction driven from the inane sloganeering around 'defund the police'. You can fund any program you democratically pass and that has nothing to do with police budget. That's the false choice you're putting out there .. that somehow you have to choose between 'funding the police' OR funding social programs. Here's the reality, we're spending billions on social programs. There are no silver-bullet social programs that we know will lower crime rate. >It's incredibly common. Uh huh. Care to quantify that? Because I think you're basing this on nothing.
jcranmer 6y ago
The counterpart to your argument is that the police brutality hasn't really made much of an impact to crime in Baltimore, certainly not a positive impact. Indeed, the homicide clearance rates in Baltimore are pretty poor, which means the police aren't putting the criminals in prison, and your support for police brutality isn't real support for the innocent crime victims but only lip service.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >and your support for police brutality Show me where I supported policy brutality? Here's a hint: NOBODY supports police brutality.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Root comment of this thread: > Baltimore police does need a mass surveillance program - for it's own officers. Remember when they looked at 2 years of body-cam footage for one of their highest earners and came out the other end with 32 counts of assault, false imprisonment and generalized misconduct? [1] That's police brutality. Your reply: > The police is not the problem. [...] Victim-rights trump criminal-rights. The fact that you are arguing against oversight of the police due to documented police brutality is at least indirect support for police brutality. Beyond that, your general stance that appears to be okay with the police doing what they need to to prevent crime would imply more direct support for police brutality, especially since you seem to justify their actions as "tough policing," which I fail to understand in any way other than a polite euphemism for "police brutality."
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      I repeat, show me where I supported policy brutality? >The fact that you are arguing against oversight of the police Where do I argue against oversight of the police? >your general stance that appears to be okay with the police doing what they need to to prevent crime Nowhere did I argue that, nor do I support that. What is wrong with you? Can you stop straw manning my position?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

birdyrooster 6y ago

The only thing the police provide victims is a deterrence for criminals and for some, perhaps, a sense of justice and closure. Beyond that, there is nothing more the police can do for victims. Victims need laws passed to help their communities from turning to crime in the first place or laws that decriminalize so called victimless crimes. Part of those changes means funding schools and small businesses and tax abatement for those in most need. So now, while we are talking about funding we look at the city budget. Lo and behold, police departments take a lot (in some cases a plurality) of total tax revenue that could be used to help victims in ways beyond deterrence. That is why we talk about defunding police. That is the context in which we are focusing on victims. The police create many victims on their own and currently have no internal way to fix that problem.

macspoofing 6y ago
>When talking about policing, the only thing it provides victims is deterrence for criminals. Beyond that, there is nothing more the police can do for victims. What about taking criminals out of the community and locking them away in prison? Would that not help? Because that's what this surveillance program would do. It allows the police to view footage after the crime occurred and track down the perp. It wouldn't help that victim, but it would prevent the next one. >Lo and behold, police departments take a lot of tax money that could be used to help victims in ways beyond deterrence and so that is why we talk about defunding police. False choice. You don't need to defund the police to fund whatever program you want. And you make it seem like there is some magic social program just waiting to be funded that would solve criminality but the evil police budget is what prevents it from being implemented. As if!
- birdyrooster 6y ago
  I never said it was the only way. You made it a false choice in your mind. Locking people up is a deterrence but it creates many criminals by putting them in depraved conditions for extended periods of time, then depriving them of employability and then as an insult, charging monthly fees for probation or other post-incarceration monitoring. The last thing I want to point out is how often the police victimize people and create new victims. It's incredibly common.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >I never said it was the only way. You wrote: "police departments take a lot (in some cases a plurality) of total tax revenue that could be used to help victims in ways beyond deterrence. That is why we talk about defunding police." Where is the evidence that the police budget is what is preventing social programs to be funded? That is a fiction driven from the inane sloganeering around 'defund the police'. You can fund any program you democratically pass and that has nothing to do with police budget. That's the false choice you're putting out there .. that somehow you have to choose between 'funding the police' OR funding social programs. Here's the reality, we're spending billions on social programs. There are no silver-bullet social programs that we know will lower crime rate. >It's incredibly common. Uh huh. Care to quantify that? Because I think you're basing this on nothing.

jcranmer 6y ago

The counterpart to your argument is that the police brutality hasn't really made much of an impact to crime in Baltimore, certainly not a positive impact. Indeed, the homicide clearance rates in Baltimore are pretty poor, which means the police aren't putting the criminals in prison, and your support for police brutality isn't real support for the innocent crime victims but only lip service.

macspoofing 6y ago
>and your support for police brutality Show me where I supported policy brutality? Here's a hint: NOBODY supports police brutality.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Root comment of this thread: > Baltimore police does need a mass surveillance program - for it's own officers. Remember when they looked at 2 years of body-cam footage for one of their highest earners and came out the other end with 32 counts of assault, false imprisonment and generalized misconduct? [1] That's police brutality. Your reply: > The police is not the problem. [...] Victim-rights trump criminal-rights. The fact that you are arguing against oversight of the police due to documented police brutality is at least indirect support for police brutality. Beyond that, your general stance that appears to be okay with the police doing what they need to to prevent crime would imply more direct support for police brutality, especially since you seem to justify their actions as "tough policing," which I fail to understand in any way other than a polite euphemism for "police brutality."
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    I repeat, show me where I supported policy brutality? >The fact that you are arguing against oversight of the police Where do I argue against oversight of the police? >your general stance that appears to be okay with the police doing what they need to to prevent crime Nowhere did I argue that, nor do I support that. What is wrong with you? Can you stop straw manning my position?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]