|
Kalit posted:I often hear this, but I rarely see anyone claim what their wording means nor any studies/sources supplied with it. So, for you, how is "helpful" defined? What does "rarely" mean? And are you referring to any crime? Or does some crime get a higher priority than others? Police respond to crime that has already occurred. They rarely respond to crimes that are in progress and still in progress when they arrive. And some crime does get a higher priority. Violent crime will get responded to faster over property crime
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
theCalamity posted:Police respond to crime that has already occurred. They rarely respond to crimes that are in progress and still in progress when they arrive. And some crime does get a higher priority. Violent crime will get responded to faster over property crime Kalit posted:What does "rarely" mean?  Also, I thought it was obvious that I was asking about Mendrian's personal opinion about what kind of crime they were referring to when they said "crime in progress". Not the priority level that police departments give to various crimes....
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Kalit posted:
It's pretty easy to just Google up good articles in support of a pretty basic and uncontroversial claim, so I'm not sure why we're dealing with leading questions instead of counterarguments. We can start here, which uses multiple sources to show how police departments spend their time. Since you haven't made a claim yourself, I don't know what else to say. https://www.vox.com/2020/7/31/21334190/what-police-do-defund-abolish-police-reform-training
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:It's pretty easy to just Google up good articles in support of a pretty basic and uncontroversial claim, so I'm not sure why we're dealing with leading questions instead of counterarguments. We can start here, which uses multiple sources to show how police departments spend their time. Since you haven't made a claim yourself, I don't know what else to say. Fair enough, here's an article with ~30% of active shooting events (excluding domestic/gang related shootings) that was ended by police: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html. The reason I was trying to get a specific definition is because I don't know what "rarely" meant to these posters. And what kind of crimes they were counting. If it meant less than 50% of active shooters, then fair enough, their definition fits. This is me trying to post in good faith and not get into slapfights due to unknown differing definitions
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
Kalit posted:
I can't speak for Mendrian, but I think it's pretty plain to see what a "crime in progress" is: it's any crime in progress. I'm sorry for the tautology, but it's quite obvious. "Rarely" to me is also quite obvious. Crimes, even violent ones, can happen within minutes and end just as quickly. The police are not physically able to respond to crime while they are still occurring most of the time unless it happens right in front of them or are very close by. Given the amount of police compared to the amount of people in a given city/jurisdiction, stopping crimes in progress is going to be a rarity (also, to my knowledge, FBI UCR doesn't show if a crime was in progress or not when the police arrived). Apologies if I'm misreading anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
Crime "in progress" meaning a crime that is still happening. Like if you own a business and somebody robs you, and you call the police, what do you suppose the odds are that they turn up in the middle of the robbery and arrest the robber? I should think this doesn't require statistics - it's fairly logical that you cannot conjure a police officer whenever you need them and yet the most enduring question surrounding changing the police seems to be "how do we stop crime without police." The police should be a largely administrative and psychological department and yet we treat and arm them like their job is to intervene, which it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Crime "in progress" meaning a crime that is still happening. If you can't conjure a cop out of thin air this is clearly an argument for raising police budgets until you can. Whether the cops will actually DO anything when conjured is a separate matter (that also can be solved with a higher budget maybe? Better try it and see).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:If you can't conjure a cop out of thin air this is clearly an argument for raising police budgets until you can. Whether the cops will actually DO anything when conjured is a separate matter (that also can be solved with a higher budget maybe? Better try it and see). I mean if we just make everybody a police officer it would stop all crime! But yeah whether or not the cops do their job is a whole other question I was avoiding because I don't want to post statistics to prove something that everybody can tell from looking which is cops don't do anything when you ask unless you're rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I mean if we just make everybody a police officer it would stop all crime!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:38
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I mean if we just make everybody a police officer it would stop all crime! Not doing anything when you ask unless you're rich is their job, though. Everything else is just marketing
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I often hear this, but I rarely see anyone claim what their wording means nor any studies/sources supplied with it. So, for you, how is "helpful" defined? What does "rarely" mean? And are you referring to any crime? Or does some crime get a higher priority than others? What are your thoughts on the police response to the Uvalde massacre? Were the police there helpful? Do you figure that was a high priority crime?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I often hear this, but I rarely see anyone claim what their wording means nor any studies/sources supplied with it. So, for you, how is "helpful" defined? What does "rarely" mean? And are you referring to any crime? Or does some crime get a higher priority than others? Ok, imagine a gunman is in a class room with a bunch of kids. When he starts killing those kids you would expect the police to help. But actually they have no legal requirement and they will not put themselves at risk. Or imagine helpful police who make sure to properly process and investigate all rape kits, an incredibly useful tool that allows us to collect DNA evidence of rape and really push back on a crime that for a long time has honestly been an accepted reality of life. Are our police doing that? Uhhh, well, https://www.endthebacklog.org/what-is-the-backlog/ Also if you need hard numbers police solve less then half of all crimes https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/01/most-violent-and-property-crimes-in-the-u-s-go-unsolved/ Want to kill someone? 40% chance you get away. Target someone who society doesn't care about, the lesser dead? Holy poo poo your chances go up. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/24/17896034/murder-crime-clearance-fbi-report
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:What are your thoughts on the police response to the Uvalde massacre? Were the police there helpful? Do you figure that was a high priority crime? It was poo poo. They weren't helpful (and were probably actively harmful) in that one instance. What's your point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
There's also the famous 40% domestic violence among police stat. Definitely not helpful for their families. Also they don't even teach themselves how to help correctly. The majority of police work has nothing to do with violence and is minor crimes and civil duties. However their training is obsessed with the warrior cop. https://www.vox.com/2020/7/31/21334190/what-police-do-defund-abolish-police-reform-training They're like if the IT guy knew jack poo poo about computers but had a lot of guns and was pretty sure they fixed computers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Surprising news: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1540160301202640898 I'm shocked this actually passed. I don't think it'll make a huge impact, but much, much better than nothing. I guess we'll see how the phrase "serious relationship" is interpreted. Here's the full text of the bill: https://www.sinema.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Surprising news: It's not enough and the Republicans will never vote for any more gun control ever again. Any shooting that happens now will just be "see gun control doesn't do anything." I'd love to have the outlook of "it's a start." But the reality is that was it. The start and the finish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Surprising news: Google suggests the "dating relationship" definition appears to at least involve all the same factors by which it is commonly defined in state law involving things like restraining orders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:It's not enough and the Republicans will never vote for any more gun control ever again. Any shooting that happens now will just be "see gun control doesn't do anything." Eh, not like they've voted for [federal] gun control in the past ...29 years (1993, from what I can recall). I can't imagine this bill would be the reason why more gun control bills won't pass for the next 3+ decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:44
|
|
|
Roe v. Wade has been overturned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Wonder if this moment was in the backs of the senates mind when they started working on that new protection for judges AND NO ONE ELSE law
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
B B posted:Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Link for anyone that needs it. This is so disheartening knowing that nothing can be done to combat this. Love that a minority of the country rules the majority. https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1540338214371721216?t=kZIPde5xEySaOrADlYpI6w&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
midwest ink posted:Link for anyone that needs it. This is so disheartening knowing that nothing can be done to combat this. Love that a minority of the country rules the majority. Nothing legal I suppose, but plenty can and should be done. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Do we know if Susan Collins has gone from "concerned" to "Jimmies are rustled" yet? Well, now I guess we just have to wait to see how long it'll take the court to decide to hear a case that'll overturn Griswold or Obergfell, since the ruling seems to have the same "constitution doesn't explicitly say this" logic as the leaked draft, and Thomas explicitly calls for overturning them in his concurrence. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Surprising news: Given the recent warpath the Conservative SCOTUS is on, this'll be dead as soon as its signed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Looking forward to the Dems’ various statements about being ‘very concerned’ while it just became illegal to get an abortion in a double digit amount of states
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Do we know if Susan Collins has gone from "concerned" to "Jimmies are rustled" yet? Susan Collins is currently at a "malfunctioning Chuck E. Cheese animatronic" level of incoherent chattering over how surprised she is that this somehow happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Well, now I guess we just have to wait to see how long it'll take the court to decide to hear a case that'll overturn Griswold or Obergfell, since the ruling seems to have the same "constitution doesn't explicitly say this" logic as the leaked draft, and Thomas explicitly calls for overturning them in his concurrence. Probably sooner than we think. Here's the green light to reactionary activists to bring the cases forward: https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112?s=20&t=icRhPAD_I3R1HoHqrTDYIg
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Collins et al have had time to develop a response, the release of the opinion that was expected isn't going to disrupt her messaging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:Probably sooner than we think. Here's the green light to reactionary activists to bring the cases forward: Soyomayor should reconsider her friendship with Thomas
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Still will never understand why we let 9 gigantic dweebs decide everything for us. This is hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:Probably sooner than we think. Here's the green light to reactionary activists to bring the cases forward: Cool, cool, just immediately roll everything back to the... what... 1950's, 1960's? Tell me again why the SC hasn't been expanded yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Cool, cool, just immediately roll everything back to the... what... 1950's, 1960's? Tell me again why the SC hasn't been expanded yet? Because the people who constantly say mean things about the Democratic party might say mean things about the Democratic party if they take any type of action. E: at this point, their inaction is compliance. Velocity Raptor fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Collins et al have had time to develop a response, the release of the opinion that was expected isn't going to disrupt her messaging. They won't have used it. The last time they had years to come up with a "what next?" it was clear that they hadn't given it any thought whatsoever. They don't need to, and the worst that they ever get is glowing media coverage about it. Whatever she says, she's going to sound like a hollow idiot shill because that's what she is. That's what they all are. This is the part where they get to tut tut at people wishing for better things while gloating about their victories in the game they couldn't have lost even if they tried. The interesting thing isn't what she or anyone else in her position says, it's in what everyone else does. I expect there will be several more bills to come in the near future for extra security measures for the powerful. They will need them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
This is going to turn North Carolina into a war zone. https://twitter.com/nc_governor/status/1540344093120798722?s=21&t=DgYOrB2hMRt4__N4TFmPOw Hopefully the gas prices keep the chuds from rolling into Asheville.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:Probably sooner than we think. Here's the green light to reactionary activists to bring the cases forward: Loving follows exactly the same logic, but the coward won't mention that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
And just to clarify, but that means a full 1/3rd of the Supreme Court lied under oath, right? I know there's no actual repercussions for doing that, I'm just wanting to confirm that the SC is just a puppetshow of the Republican extremists at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Randalor posted:And just to clarify, but that means a full 1/3rd of the Supreme Court lied under oath, right? I know there's no actual repercussions for doing that, I'm just wanting to confirm that the SC is just a puppetshow of the Republican extremists at this point. None of them actually lied, just gave dodgy answers
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:None of them actually lied, just gave dodgy answers “Already settled case law”
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Pelosi giving a statement now, with one bit along the lines of "Better vote Dem in November so we can fix this" WELL WHAT THE LIVING gently caress DO YOU HAVE NOW YOU [CENSORED]
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1540348734533296128 fugitive slave laws are back on the menu boys. anyone that isn't for court expansion or getting rid of it entirely at this point can get hosed
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:02
|
|
