3 ms·

Where? There has been self-checkout all over America for 15+ years. I don't see anywhere removing it. The recent problems have been: District Attorneys decidi

Where? There has been self-checkout all over America for 15+ years. I don't see anywhere removing it. The recent problems have been: District Attorneys deciding property crime is selectively enforceable for social justice engineering, and a knock-on effect of the police not bothering to do their job while having the gall to collect a paycheck they didn't earn. Political divisions where a growing demographic of self-destructives wish to throw a Molotov cocktail into functional civilization. This explains why COTUS can't elect a Speaker of the House.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> District Attorneys deciding property crime is selectively enforceable for social justice engineering, and a knock-on effect of the police not bothering to do their job while having the gall to collect a paycheck they didn't earn. Many police departments in big cities are severely understaffed. Seattle is at 60% where it needs to be, and has the lowest number of officers since 1992 (while population is much larger than then). Couple that with just being a bad job: you get blamed for not doing enough, doing too much, and...really, there are just way better jobs out there these days that offer as much money for a lot less stress.
hakfoo 3y ago
Maybe it's not "social justice engineering" so much as liability avoidance. We've seen plenty of issues with police that wildly escalate a situation, in ways that result in things like "burn-half-the-city-down riots". In that atmosphere, it might be an intentional goal to minimize the number of "low value" police encounters. Stopping a shoplifter might recover $100 of merchandise, but you have to get it right an awful lot of times to recover for every time a trigger-happy cop loses his cool and the city has to pay a seven-figure settlement.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > issues with police that wildly escalate a situation, in ways that result in things like "burn-half-the-city-down riots". That is one way of putting it. Another and in my opinion more correct way is to conclude that some groups of people are looking for reasons to burn half the city down and find it in "police brutality" or "racism". When the police is just as brutal towards different groups of people the cities do not burn down. You can have a look at the areas which gave heed to the calls to "defund the police" to find out whether that has led to a decrease or increase of crime. If the police were the cause of these problems you'd expect fewer problems when there are fewer police encounters. In actuality the result is the opposite and what most people who do not hold with the narrative expected: less police leads to more crimes committed. No, reducing police presence in these dystopian areas is not the solution. A better trained police force with better tactics might be. Giuliani managed to turn New York around so it can be done if there is the will and the opportunity to act upon that will. Giving up and giving in will lead to streets empty of stores instead of streets with empty stores which will promptly be followed by claims of "discrimination" and "structural racism" because there are no shops in those areas without a single person asking why those shops left. Giving up and giving in is not an option.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

> District Attorneys deciding property crime is selectively enforceable for social justice engineering, and a knock-on effect of the police not bothering to do their job while having the gall to collect a paycheck they didn't earn. Many police departments in big cities are severely understaffed. Seattle is at 60% where it needs to be, and has the lowest number of officers since 1992 (while population is much larger than then). Couple that with just being a bad job: you get blamed for not doing enough, doing too much, and...really, there are just way better jobs out there these days that offer as much money for a lot less stress.

hakfoo 3y ago

Maybe it's not "social justice engineering" so much as liability avoidance. We've seen plenty of issues with police that wildly escalate a situation, in ways that result in things like "burn-half-the-city-down riots". In that atmosphere, it might be an intentional goal to minimize the number of "low value" police encounters. Stopping a shoplifter might recover $100 of merchandise, but you have to get it right an awful lot of times to recover for every time a trigger-happy cop loses his cool and the city has to pay a seven-figure settlement.

the_third_wave 3y ago
> issues with police that wildly escalate a situation, in ways that result in things like "burn-half-the-city-down riots". That is one way of putting it. Another and in my opinion more correct way is to conclude that some groups of people are looking for reasons to burn half the city down and find it in "police brutality" or "racism". When the police is just as brutal towards different groups of people the cities do not burn down. You can have a look at the areas which gave heed to the calls to "defund the police" to find out whether that has led to a decrease or increase of crime. If the police were the cause of these problems you'd expect fewer problems when there are fewer police encounters. In actuality the result is the opposite and what most people who do not hold with the narrative expected: less police leads to more crimes committed. No, reducing police presence in these dystopian areas is not the solution. A better trained police force with better tactics might be. Giuliani managed to turn New York around so it can be done if there is the will and the opportunity to act upon that will. Giving up and giving in will lead to streets empty of stores instead of streets with empty stores which will promptly be followed by claims of "discrimination" and "structural racism" because there are no shops in those areas without a single person asking why those shops left. Giving up and giving in is not an option.