4 ms·

The stats are useless. The police need them to go down, so they go down. My partner and a friend came on a woman who was getting mugged and the guy ran off with

The stats are useless. The police need them to go down, so they go down. My partner and a friend came on a woman who was getting mugged and the guy ran off with her bag. They called 911 and the cops showed up, didn't get out of the car, blew cigarette smoke in their faces, and said, "You don't want to report this, do you?" My partner had to walk her home since they just drove away. If you do insist on reporting, they make you pay for it, you could be at the station for 5 hours, which happened to my mother after her car was broken into by a homeless man. They're encouraged to not report specific kinds of crimes.

smt88 6y ago
> The stats are useless. The police need them to go down, so they go down. How do you know there is more manipulation of the stats now than there was at any other point in the past? If you're saying the official stats can't be trusted, you're just saying that no one knows how bad crime is. Or maybe you're saying no one knows except you? Regardless, you can't argue that crime is going up based on anecdotes, regardless of whether the official stats are trustworthy or not. > If you do insist on reporting, they make you pay for it, you could be at the station for 5 hours, which happened to my mother after her car was broken into by a homeless man. They're encouraged to not report specific kinds of crimes. So you're saying that's true in every city in the US? There's no city that's trying to do honest crime reporting? Because this isn't just a trend in NYC.
- tarboreus 6y ago
  I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. It could be going down, and they're still useless. Yes, I am talking about NYC. I'm sure every other city is a relative statistical utopia. But I have no information on those cities, given I don't live there, except for the official stats. They could be shaving off exactly 10% every year, and the trend lines are fine. Or they could shave off enough to make crime go down slightly every year, which is what I'd do if I were a chief who had to answer to a mayor, and didn't really care about statistical fidelity. Just because you're looking at a chart, doesn't mean the chart reflects reality. And it doesn't matter if you don't have a nice other chart to look at. Sometimes you can't answer questions accurately from your chair 500 miles away.
  - smt88 6y ago
    > I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. Then why did you add an anecdote about crimes you heard about? > Or they could shave off enough to make crime go down slightly every year, which is what I'd do if I were a chief who had to answer to a mayor, and didn't really care about statistical fidelity. It seems implausible that thousands of chiefs and mayors are doing exactly this, all across the country. You would also expect to see downward jumps when new mayors came into office, which anyone fudging the numbers would do to make sure they stayed in office. You're talking about, essentially, a conspiracy that runs from the bottom of local police departments all the way to the FBI (who also collect these stats).
    - tarboreus 6y ago
      The FBI largely collects the stats they are sent. I've made no claims about the rest of the country. The story of this instance of crime is that they're not collecting data the way they should. The way they opted not to collect it shows that it's part of their standard MO. They could be making up crimes they're not solving, but there's no incentive for them to do that. And it's impossible to see that in action, it would just look like someone entering things into a spreadsheet. You should respond to claims people are making, instead of responding to claims you want people to have made because they're easier to argue against. It makes discussion a waste of time.

smt88 6y ago

> The stats are useless. The police need them to go down, so they go down. How do you know there is more manipulation of the stats now than there was at any other point in the past? If you're saying the official stats can't be trusted, you're just saying that no one knows how bad crime is. Or maybe you're saying no one knows except you? Regardless, you can't argue that crime is going up based on anecdotes, regardless of whether the official stats are trustworthy or not. > If you do insist on reporting, they make you pay for it, you could be at the station for 5 hours, which happened to my mother after her car was broken into by a homeless man. They're encouraged to not report specific kinds of crimes. So you're saying that's true in every city in the US? There's no city that's trying to do honest crime reporting? Because this isn't just a trend in NYC.

tarboreus 6y ago
I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. It could be going down, and they're still useless. Yes, I am talking about NYC. I'm sure every other city is a relative statistical utopia. But I have no information on those cities, given I don't live there, except for the official stats. They could be shaving off exactly 10% every year, and the trend lines are fine. Or they could shave off enough to make crime go down slightly every year, which is what I'd do if I were a chief who had to answer to a mayor, and didn't really care about statistical fidelity. Just because you're looking at a chart, doesn't mean the chart reflects reality. And it doesn't matter if you don't have a nice other chart to look at. Sometimes you can't answer questions accurately from your chair 500 miles away.
- smt88 6y ago
  > I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. Then why did you add an anecdote about crimes you heard about? > Or they could shave off enough to make crime go down slightly every year, which is what I'd do if I were a chief who had to answer to a mayor, and didn't really care about statistical fidelity. It seems implausible that thousands of chiefs and mayors are doing exactly this, all across the country. You would also expect to see downward jumps when new mayors came into office, which anyone fudging the numbers would do to make sure they stayed in office. You're talking about, essentially, a conspiracy that runs from the bottom of local police departments all the way to the FBI (who also collect these stats).
  - tarboreus 6y ago
    The FBI largely collects the stats they are sent. I've made no claims about the rest of the country. The story of this instance of crime is that they're not collecting data the way they should. The way they opted not to collect it shows that it's part of their standard MO. They could be making up crimes they're not solving, but there's no incentive for them to do that. And it's impossible to see that in action, it would just look like someone entering things into a spreadsheet. You should respond to claims people are making, instead of responding to claims you want people to have made because they're easier to argue against. It makes discussion a waste of time.