Urban Crime Conversation

[PaulChinetti]

I talk about it in in other threads for sure, the police precincts are insanely large too. I'm beyond positive that doesn't help. I remember growing up knowing the cops that patrolled my area, with such large areas the officers have no chance to make any kinds of connections with the citizens. 

[Guest]

I advocate police need to enforce the law without feel-good PC considerations. The means allowing the police to stop and frisk with probable cause...the previous standard. A a permitted gun carrier, I have been stopped and drawn-down on until the policeman was satisfied I was legally carrying. During the class to obtain a permit we are taught how to comply with law enforcement in such events. There are certain knives illegal and if a cop had probable cause to stop and frisk me then have at it. I believe you will find it is only the criminals who have a problem with stop and frisk. 

More specifically, I do not believe in most knife or gun restrictions for law-abiding citizens. In the US we have the 2nd amendment (and commonsense for the most part), and London has squat. As always it is the law-abiding citizens who suffer when they are denied tools to protect themselves from the thugs.

I enjoy our back and forth, yet I do wish you would include relevant information in support of your claims.  For instance I content the lack of Metro to enforce immigration violations has in part led to the increase in crime in Nashville... and here is the relevant link. 
http://fox17.com/news/local/nashville-mayor-local-resources-wont-be-used-to-enforce-federal-immigration-policies

I have not posted and I do not believe all increase in urban crime is attributable to the progressive -left's ineffective PC policing policies, but I do believe it responsible for the lion's share.

 

On 4/9/2018 at 9:48 AM, samsonh said:

Interesting. So you propose that we should be more aggressive pursuing knives and guns in this country? Also interesting that other countries are unwilling to tolerate violence a fraction of the level we have here. 

 

Also, what policies have been put in place in the past few years that have led to the increase in murders in Nashville? You mentioned you had theories. 

 

[Guest]

Complaining about other people not reading enough desperate sources to satisfy themselves is a weak charge. If you have a better source post it... (If I were playing the same game I could complain : The Independent is more left skewed than Dailywire is right skewed. ha)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-123421/Crime-shows-biggest-rise-decade.html

To alleviate your concern on the source, I will post a US liberal version...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/

Encompassing the last 3-years  NUMBEO (online collaborative database) has London crime surging past NYC in almost every crime category metric.

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&city1=London&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY

20 hours ago, samsonh said:

London has a murder rate one third of New York’s. Guys, please diversify your news sources and start going to actually sources.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html

 

Conservatives: London is not more dangerous than nyc. Not complicated.

 

[Guest]

My new favorite -

How can the Mayor of London Ban Hands (Satire)  HA

“No excuses: there is never a reason to have hands in a modern, civil society. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law,” Khan said at a press conference announcing the new policy during which he revealed that he has had his own hands surgically removed as a good-faith move to jump-start the new regulations.

Along with the new hand-control measures, Khan announced a new task force focused on purging the city of hands, as well as an expanded police presence focused on stopping and searching citizens who they think may have failed to have their hands removed from their person."

http://babylonbee.com/news/in-response-to-growing-number-of-fistfights-london-mayor-bans-hands/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=mjk

[PaulChinetti]

56 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

 

I advocate police need to enforce the law without feel-good PC considerations.

 

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-us/collection_5a789407-4d43-5403-ad56-7c47880bda8e.html

I would say some of the cities on this list are NOT  “feel good PC cities”.

So maybe everyone is just pissed at everyone else. 

[Rockatansky]

18 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

I believe you will find it is only the criminals who have a problem with stop and frisk. 

I disagree entirely.

[samsonh]

19 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-us/collection_5a789407-4d43-5403-ad56-7c47880bda8e.html

I would say some of the cities on this list are NOT  “feel good PC cities”.

So maybe everyone is just pissed at everyone else. 

Potentially the war on drugs is a huge problem and the recent rise in murder coincides with a sharp uptick in heroin usage. Drug users will steal for their drug. Maybe putting money towards treatment instead of stopping and frisking everyone will have better results? 

 

[Guest]

How would you address this real-world, present-day tragedy unfolding in one of the richest city in our country? Enforce the laws or we all suffer and society crumbles piece by piece...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/04/25/junkies-san-francisco-civic-center-bart/ 

 

On 4/11/2018 at 1:52 PM, samsonh said:

Potentially the war on drugs is a huge problem and the recent rise in murder coincides with a sharp uptick in heroin usage. Drug users will steal for their drug. Maybe putting money towards treatment instead of stopping and frisking everyone will have better results? 

 

 

[samsonh]

19 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

How would you address this real-world, present-day tragedy unfolding in one of the richest city in our country? Enforce the laws or we all suffer and society crumbles piece by piece...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/04/25/junkies-san-francisco-civic-center-bart/ 

 

 

How would you address the tragedy that happened at Waffle House? Stop and frisk?

ill read the article and respond tomorrow. Busy voting for transit now.

[Guest]

I always support citizens exercising their rights. I myself and my just turned 18 year old sone exercised ours ! 'Merica ha

I look forward to your response.

[samsonh]

On 4/26/2018 at 5:25 PM, nashville_bound said:

I always support citizens exercising their rights. I myself and my just turned 18 year old sone exercised ours ! 'Merica ha

I look forward to your response.

I thought about responding to your post. Then I realized no matter how many facts I post it will not change your heart. I know you think you are right, I appreciate that. I’ve posted fact after fact with you and it has had no impact. I am done with that. The best liberals are born from conservatives, we thank you.

[Guest]

Thanks for participating. Obviously we disagree...kind of the point. I do hope your 'facts' play out because the writing on the wall is not looking very good for urban crime.

[Guest]

A post for any who have an opinion on this absurd 'solution' which is contributing to San Francisco's race to the bottom in livability,,,, at least for the non super-rich.  

The takeaway.....the city provides free endless to junkies, the junkies throw the diseased needles on the sidewalks/streets....so, the city now hires 10 positions to do nothing but pick-up the diseased needles. ha

https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-franciscos-many-free-syringes-littering-streets-001647776.html

[samsonh]

2 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

A post for any who have an opinion on this absurd 'solution' which is contributing to San Francisco's race to the bottom in livability,,,, at least for the non super-rich.  

The takeaway.....the city provides free endless to junkies, the junkies throw the diseased needles on the sidewalks/streets....so, the city now hires 10 positions to do nothing but pick-up the diseased needles. ha

https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-franciscos-many-free-syringes-littering-streets-001647776.html

Addiction is a disease that should be treated in some way. These addicts are human beings. They deserve some empathy. San Francisco is trying an alternative to jail. I’m certain this will evolve with time. But ha! Is not going to solve anything. 

[ruraljuror]

4 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

A post for any who have an opinion on this absurd 'solution' which is contributing to San Francisco's race to the bottom in livability,,,, at least for the non super-rich.  

The takeaway.....the city provides free endless to junkies, the junkies throw the diseased needles on the sidewalks/streets....so, the city now hires 10 positions to do nothing but pick-up the diseased needles. ha

https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-franciscos-many-free-syringes-littering-streets-001647776.html

 

I don't know the history of their free needle program, but it seems more likely to me that it was cheaper and/or otherwise preferable for the city to provide the needles than it was to deal with AIDS/Hep C , etc. epidemics. 

That said, I'm certainly open to the argument that there are better, alternative solutions to the problems they're addressing here.  Do you have any in mind?  According to the article: "Research shows that reducing access to clean syringes increases disease and does not improve the problem of needle litter," said Barbara Garcia, director of the Department of Public Health, "  so it seems like the clean needle program is better than nothing.  

 

[Guest]

Under the weather, so I will respond at length in a bit. However, I will respond  to a couple of points.

1. If they gave a sickness then instead of enabling the drug abusers the city should force them into treatment and/or jail. 

2. How bad can aids really be if CA decriminalized purposefully  infecting sex partners. It is incredible, but true.

3. Explain to me how junkies....sorry the legally absolved junkies due to circumstances beyond their control... are both sharing needles and discarding the same amount of single-use free needles? To a layman it looks to be mutually exclusive.

4. The ‘ha’ I frequently insert into my discussions are meant to communicate my bemusement when social policies produce very predictable, negative consequences, yet the powers that be fein surprise.  Ha (see How I use it)? I am not laughing at the druggies. In fact, I argue my policy of forced treatment (once found guilty) is much more humane than helping those with an illness kill themselves while killing the livability of the city.

 

[ruraljuror]

24 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

1. If they gave a sickness then instead of enabling the drug abusers the city should force them into treatment and/or jail. 

Cost is the primary obstacle here.   Proper treatment would take at least 4 weeks in a full-time facility, and the success rate isn't great even for those people who are desperately and personally motivated to quit.  For those who aren't interested in quitting and are only receiving treatment to fulfill sentencing requirements, the success rate is even worse.   I'm all for expanding effective social services, and I think improved voluntary treatment is almost certainly worth the extra expense, but the ROI just isn't there for forced treatment at the very least.

The problem is the same for throwing offenders in jail.  Are the police supposed to round them all up on a daily basis?  That would obviously require a significant and costly expansion of the force.  Also, how long do you keep the junkies locked up? The city doesn't have the jail capacity to keep them all behind bars for longer than a day or two-- just enough time for withdrawal symptoms to get nasty, which creates additional problems for everyone involved.

39 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

2. How bad can aids really be if CA decriminalized purposefully  infecting sex partners. It is incredible, but true.

CA didn't decriminalize purposefully infecting sex partners with AIDS, they just reduced it from a felony to put it at the same level of criminality as knowingly infecting someone with Tuberculosis or SARS or any other potentially lethal/incurable disease.

That said, I'm definitely receptive to the argument that knowingly spreading any of those diseases should all qualify as felonies, but I agree with the CA legislature that all the lethal/incurable diseases should be treated the same. 

47 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

3. Explain to me how junkies....sorry the legally absolved junkies due to circumstances beyond their control... are both sharing needles and discarding the same amount of single-use free needles? To a layman it looks to be mutually exclusive.

I may be missing your point, but I think there are many, many more needles being used and discarded now compared to before the free needle program.  A larger portion of those needles are being properly disposed of, however, which leaves about the same number of needles lying around in the streets/parks.  

57 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

4. The ‘ha’ I frequently insert into my discussions are meant to communicate my bemusement when social policies produce very predictable, negative consequences, yet the powers that be fain surprise. Ha (see How I use it)? I am not laughing at the druggies. In fact, I argue my policy of forced treatment (once found guilty) is much more humane than helping those with an illness kill themselves while killing the livability of the city.

As I said, I think forced treatment has it's drawbacks and limitations, but if someone of your political sensibilities is willing to support that kind of massive social program expansion, I think it speaks to the severity of the problem if nothing else, and I could probably be convinced to get on board with giving it a shot. 

[Guest]

Fair correction on decriminalization... I mistakenly overstated the point in error. Though my point remains.

i would have to see hard numbers to decide what I did or did not support. I know I do not support government enabling, nay subsidizing criminal behavior which negatively impacts the quality of life issues for others following the law.

I am sure you know the old economics laws-

People do more of something when the reward increases. When you subsidize something, you get more of it... and it’s converse... People do less of something when the penalty or cost increases.

this is on point and explains some of the increase in drug use, crime, and homelessness. Attempting to ‘fix’ these social ills has lead the government to headlong into masking or removing some of the negative consequences (costs) for their bad choices...the Moral hazard argument.

 

Returning to my initial point about the discarded, used needles, I can see my reply to you was unclear. I attempted to make the following points [1] the addition of the free needle distribution has both increased the quantity (the article states an additional 4.8 million per annum are passed out), and [2] if one takes both the stated increase in needles in circulation and incorporate the stated purpose to be ‘we give out free needles so no one has to share’ the logical conclusion is the city decreases the value of each hyperdermic needs to the junkie and thus the junkie has zero incentive to hang on to a needle .... thus increasing the number of discarded used needles. I hope that was clearer. So, if the same number are being discarded (source) why the sudden outcry from the public leading to the creation of ten new positions whose sole scope is to pick up used needles.

[xtianpoop]

I have been missing from this forum for a little while, and decided to turn off lurking mode to add a few cents. @nashville_bound I do want to express that I appreciate the opening of discussion and the willingness of candid opinions and thoughts. I know people, especially those leaning more right, do not feel sometimes they can express these always. It's refreshing here, especially with the balance of stats and tone. You have my kudos and respect.

 

 re: Stop-and-Frisk: I disagree with your sentiment. I am law-abiding, and I do not wish to be stopped and frisked. I tend to think that gun owners enjoy the notion more, because for better or for worse, a lot of ire is always in their direction. It's almost self-affirming to carry and receive the validation through a stop and frisk. I am typing aloud here, but I also type without judgement. Does that make sense? I am in the same way when it comes to being ID'd. I understand it's the law and my privacy only goes so far at times, but I do not like being questioned or repeatedly asked in an establishment, especially when there is security at the door. It's the duty and right of enforcement, but in many cases (anecdotal data from my experiences and those shared of credible friends), stop and frisk at-large was done inconsistently, with identifiable groups experiencing higher rates of targeting. Argument could be the target was there for a reason, sure, but my point is there seemed to be too many indiscretions with this power. I refrain from using "abuse" here.  Surely you can see this without explicit data and can see that politically-inclined policies weren't born solely out of a conference room platform discussion under guilded columns. 

 

I'm not wading deep into the urban crimes rates increasing debate presently. I want to add perspective and sow ideas to a greater picture. Using hometown Chattanooga as an example, the high levels of violent crime are cyclical and hyper-concentrated. There are many ways to cut it, but what is glaring is for these areas, there is a low level of upward mobility. Very low. Add government services changing and often lessening over the years, failing public schools (the state is trying to intervene presently), and a shift towards housing vouchers: you get people stuck, disconnected, and arrested (not criminally). Housing vouchers, here, have aided to the crime incredibly. Could you argue it's because there is a lax in regulation? Ex: housing projects were known so therefore could be on a patrol map. Sure. At this point we understand the problem to be linked to no upward mobility and the existence of slumlords. These houses renting under the table to more people than units, the low-quality building materials, high energy usage, and low upkeep not only add to the minutia of weight in these already vulnerable populations, but this contributes to a culture. 

Let's shift off these peoples experiences to look at others: immigrants and children of immigrants. Speaking English has come up again in national conversations, but to the matter at hand, some populations - mostly low-income - don't entirely speak English. Law enforcement isn't always bilingual or diverse. Now there is friction. Does there need to be tension? No. Using stop-and-frisk as an arbitrary example, when vulnerable populations like above receive more instances of negative police interaction - or put less politically-correct: are targeted more frequently without direct cause - it aids in a culture. You could say it aids crime. When vulnerable populations do not trust the police (or government services for that matter), crime goes unreported. This is when crime begins to increase, because consequences no longer exist as was previously known or expected.

I've kept it pretty broad here. In Chattanooga where this has been a known problem, the police force has worked for several years with community members to address the problems, develop solutions, and tackle it. The CPD has hired more bilingual officers, they changed patrol habits (such as patrolling on foot when feasible), and they are making a more concerted effort to build community relationships. If people can trust them, they will come to them, they will report crime, and their neighborhoods will become safer as a result (broad strokes here). For the slumlords situations - which require a lot more hands, including the state legislative bodies - the work moving forward is through gang-focused tactics, but the community hasn't always been in the picture. There, too, CPD is working on building relationships while the impacted neighborhoods are organizing, planning, and even working on enforcement themselves (neighborhood watches, support systems, cleaning up blighted properties, alerting governmental bodies/agencies/offices to flags). There is more hope these days due to the hard work of people coming together and not from a more emboldened police force (or another way: conservative policies).

 

The politically-correct tactics you may refer to are often a reaction to the culturality surrounding the region, which is always set to the context and history of its own area. You may not agree with them, but not only are there more players involved in the policies leaning away from your ideologies, there are grayer realities eclipsing the clearly defined frames of criminals deserve to be got and the innocent will exist relatively unscathed ("only the guilty would have problems with this"). You are very intelligent and live in an urban area. I don't presume the gray realities are new to you, but I wanted to give these realities more attention in the conversation surrounding urban crime. Numbers lack quality, as you know.

Here's my few-pennies-worth hot take on urban crime absent of stats.  

I have a science degree and plenty of experience writing policies in and out of government, so I am no stranger to citations. I just wanted to shift gears a moment is all. Political discussions can lose humanity over time, so instead of coming in guns-a-blazing, I wanted to relate. Talk about some faceless neighbors. I can pull citations in for things I said above if you'd like! I don't want to knock the conversation off the track.

[MidTenn1]

Just cleaning up the main page.