5 ms·
Only the government can do something about this. Depending on the official/body, either they think the costs are too high (both to their career and to the funct
by banannaise 4y ago
Only the government can do something about this. Depending on the official/body, either they think the costs are too high (both to their career and to the functioning of the system) or they actively support this.
In short, this is treated as an acceptable trade-off for enforcing the hierarchies of power.
- throwawaaarrgh 4y agoTechnically anyone can do something about it, but that person would be a vigilante and quickly killed, and people like their life more than they hate corruption
- CameronNemo 4y agoWith the notable exception of Christian Dorner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings...
- landemva 4y ago> anyone can do something about it How? Even a victim suit against department would likely be tossed out due to USSC 'qualified immunity'.
- rayiner 4y ago> In short, this is treated as an acceptable trade-off for enforcing the hierarchies of power Why don’t you unpack that statement in the context of LA. The “hierarchies of power” you’re talking about here is the civilian government having control over organized crime.
- banannaise 4y agoConsidering the amount of influence that police organizations exert on local elections, and their willingness to weaponize that against any politician they see as a threat to their control, one might argue that it's more accurately organized crime having control over the civilian government.
- rayiner 4y agoSorry, the US is a democracy even if you don’t like the results. Police organizations carry tremendous weight in elections because people think the police are good guys, are (correctly) more afraid of criminals than the police, and don’t really care about abuses against criminals and their associates. You can see this playing out right now in cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York City, etc., where mayors have been defeated or come into power because people are outraged by the increase in crime.
- kevviiinn 4y agoCrime has not risen, we live in the safest time in history
- rayiner 4y agoThe homicide rate is within historical norms, but 50% higher than in 1950. It’s also 20% higher than in 2005.
- kevviiinn 4y agoCherry picking makes backing up your biased ideas pretty easy, huh
- dbsmith83 4y agoAt least s/he has data, where's yours? edit: I misspoke, there is no data, but at least there is a claim with numbers that can or cannot be refuted for specific things. Your claim is really vague. How do you define "time in history"? How do you define safety?
- kevviiinn 4y agoReally? I haven't seen any citations I can make up numbers too. Robbery is down 76% compared with 1928 and assaults are down by 22%! Incredible! This nonsense is just reactionaries being scared, people love fear https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201607/is-the-world-more-dangerous-now-ever https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201...