101–107 of 107 posts
> The ACLU and local activists are currently suing the BPD in an attempt to prevent the AIR program, which was a six-month pilot, from starting up again in Baltimore or anywhere else. I may no longer fully agree with what ACLU has turned into in recent years (despite their legendary past of unquestionable defense, which now apparently HAS conditions thanks to the social media whining era, which is sadly unsurprising…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the wiki page on this, the murder rate is now 3 times high than 1977 (start of data on the table).
>According to the wiki page on this, the murder rate is now 3 times high than 1977 (start of data on the table). From the link[0] I posted previously" "Lastly, we turn to another place where crime and violence spiked in 2015: Baltimore. This year, Baltimore’s story continues to be a mixed one. The total number of crimes reported in the city fell by almost 6 percent compared to 2018 (through the last week of November)…
No: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Baltimore
> Continuing to say say "crime is up in Baltimore" doesn't make it true.
I could say the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because presidents keep refusing to veto (presumably because they will look weak if they veto something that gets enough votes for an override)
I'd love to see a president (of any party) veto a bill simply because it was 5500 pages long. "Send me a budget, not an encyclopedia."
Lets spend that spy plane money on mental health professionals and stuff that actually helps people and lets us not use the police for everything all the time. AKA "Defund the police."
Instead of “defund the police” how bout “legalize victimless behaviors”? If cops weren’t tasked to police what you put in your body and what you do with other consenting adults, we’d need far fewer of them and we’d probably appreciate the remaining cops a lot more.
BTW what exactly do cops police what consenting adults do with each other these days? Honest question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Please indicate how the policies you support, You can't stop straw manning me, can you? Please indicate where I showed support for 'tough policing'? The only policy I argued for was this drone program because that has real potential in getting criminals out of the community. The argument about 'tough policing' is not one of support, nor is it a justification of any police brutality. Police officers should be held re…
On a careful review of your comments, you indeed never actually stated support for "tough policing," so I will retract that portion of my statement. On the other hand, you did say at the very beginning, and I will quote your words here: > Victim-rights trump criminal-rights. which I am honestly not sure how it is meant to be interpreted, if not as a statement of support for "tough policing" (at least in theory, since…
Here's how: we have entire movements preoccupied with spreading FUD over any policy that aims to curb crime. We have movements preoccupied with letting violent criminals out of prison (trust me, there is no way to reduce the prison population without releasing violent offenders).
This story is an example of this. Look at the facts: Baltimore is one of the most violent cities in the world (not just in Maryland, not just in USA, in the effin world).
What that means is that there are a lot of innocent people being victimized by criminals. There are parents trying to raise their children in these neighborhoods and are desperately hoping that they their children don't get assaulted, killed or recruited into gangs or drugs, as they walk to school. All those tech bros in this thread wouldn't drive through some of these neighborhood. They wouldn't even let their children watch PG-13 movies due to the violence ... but there are children living in those violent neighborhoods day-in and day-out. Who is standing up for them? I don't see ACLU lawsuits to protect their rights - do you?
There is an attempt to curb this by introducing a drone program to attempt to provide some relief for this by improving police investigative powers and catch more criminals. And this program is the opposite of 'tough policing'. ACLU and other organizations focus lawsuits on this program to get rid of it (not to create common sense policies around, but to get rid of it) - why? Because they care more about safeguarding criminal rights, then the rights of citizens to safety.
It's fucked up and that's what I mean by "Victim-rights trump criminal-rights."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and your support for police brutality Show me where I supported policy brutality? Here's a hint: NOBODY supports police brutality.
“ Victim-rights trump criminal-rights.” In Baltimore, the police ARE criminals. Again and again, that department has shown itself to be corrupt from top to bottom. The victims are the citizens of Baltimore who are falsely accused of crimes and imprisoned on trumped up charges.
What that means is that there are a lot of innocent people being victimized by criminals. There are parents trying to raise their children in these neighborhoods and are desperately hoping that they their children don't get assaulted, killed or recruited into gangs or drugs, as they walk to school. All those tech bros in this thread wouldn't drive through some of these neighborhood. They wouldn't even let their children watch PG-13 movies due to the violence ... but there are children living in those violent neighborhoods day-in and day-out.
None of that is the fault of the police.