3 ms·
No, it's not a coincidence but that doesn't mean its because of what you said. Go to the wealthiest parts of Manhattan and see if they don't want the cops.
by freejazz 3y ago
No, it's not a coincidence but that doesn't mean its because of what you said. Go to the wealthiest parts of Manhattan and see if they don't want the cops.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Go to the wealthiest parts of Manhattan and see if they don't want the cops They want cops. But they vote for restrictions. It’s a bit paradoxical, but one would repeatedly see e.g. the Upper East Side request more officers and overwhelmingly support legal restrictions, independent oversight and transferring cops’ workloads to social workers.
- rangestransform 3y agoI don’t think it’s paradoxical at all, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that we should have more police AND they should do their jobs according to the law
- freejazz 3y agoNot in the wealthiest parts they don't. Go to the UES, they are not for "defunding the police" or whatever else you seem to think. The things you describe aren't "anti-police" and you are disingenuously associating reasonable restrictions, like independent oversight and the inclusion of social workers in responses when they would be appropriate, with something like district attorneys that do not wish to prosecute various categories of crimes. To be honest I didn't take you to be this disingenuous based on your earlier post, but this is just ridiculous.