The 'Ferguson Effect' - Murders Rates Rise Sharply

New stats on US murder rates. Quote:

"Among some experts and rank-and-file officers, the notion that less aggressive policing has emboldened criminals — known as the “Ferguson effect” in some circles — is a popular theory for the...

** ********."

**** ** *** *****?


Well, as the article states, there’s no evidence to support that. While I’m no expert on crime, I believe the factors that influence the rise and fall of violent crime go deeper than if the police will be aggressive when they arrest you or not. Violent criminals are not otherwise law-abiding citizens who are rationally weighing the risk/reward of getting away with the crime before they...

*—****** ****’** ****** ****** *********** **** **** **** * ******* environment **** ********* ** *********** ********.

I love that headline.

Even though he states in the piece that there is no empirical evidence to back up his claim - he's going to spout unsubstantiated anecdotal stories and state it like it is fact anyway.

Pure propaganda.

Policing is certainly not an easy job - and I do not have all the answers.... but complaining that police are hindered by having to follow the...

*********** *** *** ******** ******* ** **** *** ***** ******* actual ******** ***** ** *** ** ****** ** **** *******.

"Pure propaganda."

Really? Look at the people rejecting it. What evidence do they have? It seems no one has much hard data given the short time frame.

Those critical of the police obviously have a strong interest in this not being true, because it would mean their critiques are contributing to a rise in murder, something...

***** ****** ** ** ********** ****, *****/********?

Your position is that people rejecting something that hasn't been empirically proven requires evidence that it does not exist to reject it? How do you prove a negative?

The purity of Mr. Tomey's propaganda can be debated - but I don't think the label of propaganda can be here: There is no empirical evidence, yet he states the change in policing is the 'probable'...

.

**** **** ** ****** ** ***** '********' ****** *** *** increase ** ********/****** - *.*.** ***** ** ******** *** *** ******** **** ********* ******** in *** ******* ** '******' ********.

** ***** ** ********** ******* *** (***) ** *** ***** comment ** **** ******:

"******* ********* *** *** ********* ***-******* ******** *** *** ********** weighing *** ****/****** ** ******* **** **** *** ***** ****** they ****** **—****** ****’** ****** ****** *********** **** **** **** a ******* *********** **** ********* ** *********** ********."

"Violent criminals are not otherwise law-abiding citizens who are rationally weighing the risk/reward of getting away with the crime before they commit it"

I didn't see Steve offer any evidence. He simply stated a viewpoint that you agree more with.

"something that hasn't been...

** ****** "

**'* **** **** ** '*****' ******** **** ** ***** ** crime. *** ** ***** **** **** ** ***** ***? ***** are ******** ********, *** *** ** ****** ** * ****** that ** ********** ****** ***** ******, **?

100% agree with that - which is why Mr. Tomey's position bothers me. Not because he is wrong or right - but because he is convinced he is right with no empirical evidence.

"It's very hard to 'prove' anything when it comes to crime. Why is crime down from 50 years ago? There are numerous theories, can any be proven to a degree that no reasonable person would debate,...

>

** ***** ** * ******** - ***** **** ****.

** *** **** ** ** ***** ******* ****** ***** **** support **** *** ********, **** *** **** ********* ******** ** support **** **** ********.

* ********* ********* **** ****** **** ** ****:

"* ****** ******** ** * ********* *****; ***** ****, ** taste *** *** ******* ******: ***** ******* ******** ********** *** brain, *** ******** ******* ****** ** *****."

*** ** ********:

"*** ***** ******** **** *** ******** ***, ** *** ***** yellow ** *** ********* ***."

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. ~Benjamin Franklin

Correction of quotation: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Violent criminals are not otherwise law-abiding citizens who are rationally weighing the risk/reward of getting away with the crime before they commit it."

Certainly the irrational ones are more likely to get caught.

As for the others, how would we know?

Note that he states no other 'probable' causes for the increase in violence/murder - i.e. he seeks to vaildate his own position with anecdotal evidence in the absence of 'actual' evidence.

Why is anecdotal evidence not 'actual' evidence? Evidence for changing police attitudes are certainly important. If you had talked to 50 police chiefs yourself and...

** **** *** *, ******'* **** ******* ** ********?

****** ** *** ***** **** ********* **** ******?

*** *** ****** *** ***'* ******* ***** ************* **** ***** or **** **** ***'* **** ******** **** ** **** ***?

*.*. ****'* *** ********* ********** ** (***)-******* * ********?

"If you had talked to 50 police chiefs yourself and they all told you X, wouldn't your opinion be affected?"

There's 2 general takes on this:

  • Police chiefs are experts on crime and their expert opinion has weight
  • Police chiefs are biased bullies and their opinion simply reflects their bias

Why are these two 'takes' presented as being mutually exclusive?

Combine both bullet points, take out the inflamatory word 'bullies', and you'd be pretty close to reality.

Generally speaking, police chiefs can be said to have some expertise on crime, and - also generally speaking - police chiefs can be said to possess bias... especially if they think a practice helps their...

* '** ***** ****' (******** ** ** **** *****), *** are **** **** ***'* *** **** ******** - ** ** this ****.

** * ******** ** ****** ****** **** **** **** **** told **** ***** **** ***** ** *** ******** - *** these ****** *****/**** **** ***** **** ***** ** * ******** principle **** ***** **** ** ***** **** ****** (******** ** is **** *****), * ***** ****** * ******* **** ** the ******* ** * ***** **** *** ****** ********** ** way ****.

Why are these two 'takes' presented as being mutually exclusive?

Because although they will both be present to some degree in any chief, a preponderance of one tends to crowd out the other. As opposed to something independent such as:

  1. Jeff is male.
  2. Jeff is tall.

Jeff is a tall male. No problem...

>
  • **** ** ********** ****** ***** *** ****** ** *****.
  • **** ** ***** ************* ***** *** ****** ** *****.
  • **** ** ***** ************ *** ********** ******.****** *****.

    ****, ******* ** **** ********** ****** **** ** ******** **** one ** *** *** ****** **** ****.

    **** ******* ** ******* *** **** ********* ******* *** ********* to ** *********!

    Fewer stops lead to fewer interviews which leads to fewer arrests which leads to more crime

    Profiling exists for a reason - because the enormous amount of data gathered on violent offenders shows LE who they should be stopping.

    Those who want Law Enforcement to be reactive rather proactive are now seeing the results, although they'll never admit the Ferguson Effect is real...

    **** ******** ** **** ***** ******** ** *****

    Strawmen? You mean like "Those who want Law Enforcement to be reactive rather proactive are now seeing the results"?

    "Fewer stops lead to fewer interviews which leads to fewer arrests which leads to more crime"

    While this statement may be true, have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution - and specifically the 4th Amendment that prevents...

    * **** ********** ************ ******** *** ********?

    "********* ****** *** * ****** - ******* *** ******** ****** of **** ******** ** ******* ********* ***** ** *** **** should ** ********."

    **** ********* ******* ** **** **** *** ******** **** *** federal ****** - ***** ****** **** ***'* **** *** ***** racial ********* ** * ********* ** *** *** ********* ** the *.*. ************.

    I disagree with making declarative judgements bases on insufficient data. (Not your link UD2- that is simply a reported fact - I mean Mr. Tomey)

    But that is a sidebar argument to the larger picture here in that, as citizens, we are protected by the Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures - there must be probable cause in order for police to 'stop and...

    *>*** ****** **** ***** **** ******** ****** (********* **** *** ** ********) ********** **** **** *********** ** *** ***** ********* ** ******** *****. **'* ****** that ******.

    *** *********** ********* **** *** ** *** ******** **** ***** is - *** **** *****'* **** **** **** *** ****** in ********* **** ******* ************** ***********.

    ******* ***** ********* *** ** ***** ** ** ********* - or *** - ***'* *** *****, ***.

    Hello Marty,

    I completely agree with your post in regard to unreasonable searches and seizures and that police must play by the rules.

    However, the US Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio upheld that police do not need probable cause that a crime has occurred in order to briefly detain you for...

    *; ************** ************* *** ***, **, ** ** ***** ** *****. ** part ** **** ********* ******* (***** ***** ** * ***** stop), ****** *** ****** *** ******* ** **** ********** -- hence *** **** "**** *** *****." ************, *** ***** ** one's **** ***** ** *** ********** *********.

    Thanks for that info Kevin,

    I see the distinction between probable cause and reasonable suspicion - and I got no beef with that threshold :)

    Contrary to how it may appear to some, I am actually very pro-LE....

    It is a dangerous and many times thankless job. But like any job, some people are suited for it - while others are not. And I don't just mean the stereotypical...

    ** *** ***** **** ***** *** ***** **** ****** *** position ******... *'* ******* ***** *** **** ***** ********** ** the '** ** ****' ********* *****.

    **** ******** *** **** **** *** ******* ** *********** ** 'serve *** *******' *** **** ****** - ***** ********* **** the ***** ***** *** ********** ******* ** ***** *** '**** wall' **** ********* '*******' ******** **** ***** ******** - **, over ****, ***** ****** ********** **** *** '** ** ****' perspective. **** ** *** **** ******, ***.

    *** '****' ****, ****** *********** ****** **** ************** - **** over ***** *********** - *** ******** ** ***** ****** *** non-compliance.

    *** **** *** ******. *** **** **** *** ******** *********.

    This conversation is not about how much consideration I may or may not give victims of violent crime. Not withstanding, your assumption is incorrect.

    Wanting law enforcement to follow the laws of the land when they do what they do is not the same as having no consideration for victims of violent crime.

    If you feel that law enforcement should be able to use any tactic they...

    ** '***** *****' ** **** ** ** ** ********* (** whatever ********* *** *****) - **** ** ** **.

    *'* **** ***'* ******* *** ****** ** **** **** ****** whenever *** *********** ****** *** ***** ** **** **** ********** enough ** ****** ****.

    Take a look at Cleveland, Ohio homicide rates for 2015. Authorities are a loss for an explanation. My opinion is law enforcement is more cautious and hesitant to act proactively due to media assination and mobile technology "evidence" that often only gets part of the story captured. Amazing how quickly the tragic South Carolina church shooting was dropped from coverage when victims refused...

    *** ***** ** ******* (**** **** ** ****) ** ****. I ************ ***** ********* *** ********* ** ****** ** ****** a ******** *********.

    *** *********** *** * ***** *** ** ** *** **** aren't ******* *** ***** *** ** ** *** *********** ** you **** ** **** ******** *** ******* *** ***** ****** to **** ****** ******* *** *********?

    A great play by the administration in DC to make a race crisis for their use. Evil!

    According to the National Institute of Justice, "Crime is rarely random; patrols shouldn't be either." This is the essence of Intelligence-Led Policing, which originated in 1990's United Kingdom in response to...

    ******* ** ****** *********. ** *** ***'* ****** **********, *** thought ***, **** ** ***** ****** ***** ***** ** **** likely ** *****.

    ** * ******* ****** *******, * **** * ***** ** being **** *** *** ***** ** *** ******* ****. ***? Because ****** ***** ***** ***** *** ****. ** ***** **, it ** ** *********** **** **** ** *** ******** **** the ****** ** **** **** *** **** ****** *** *** drunk.

    *********, **** ****** ** ** ****** ************, ** ****** ** reason **** ********* ****** ******** ** ***** ** ****** ******** activity **** ****** ** **** ******** ******** **** ********* ** that ****. **** ***** ********* ****************** ****** ** * ********** ethnic *****, ** **** ****** ** ****** **** ****************** **** contacts **** ** **** ******* ** **** ***** -- ******* any **** ** *** **** ** *** ******.

    (*******, **** **** *** ******* ******* ******* ******** ***** ** Terry ***** ******* ********** *********)

    ******* ****** **** **** ***** *****, ******* *** ** ***** orders ** *** ******** ******, **** ****** ** **** ***** in ***** *****. ** ******** ***** ** ** ***** **** police ******** **** *** ****** ***** ** *** ***** *****.

    "To disagree would be to claim that police activity does not reduce crime in the first place."

    Does police activity 'reduce' crime - or simply displace crime?

    Does a criminal think, "I was going to commit crime, but since there are a lot of police around I'm not going to commit crime after all"?

    Police activity both reduces and displaces crime. We have seen this here in rural Michigan, which is ideal for the manufacture of methamphetamine. With neighbors far and few between (we have more pigs than people), it is less likely the simpler "dump and run" method of cooking meth would be seen or smelled. Once we cracked down on meth labs, we noticed a drop in meth leaving the county, and...

    *** ** ** ****** **. **** ***** ***, *** ******** said, "********* ***** ** *** **** **** ****." ** ***** we ********* *** ***** ** ****** ****, ******* *** ** did ****** ** ****** *** ***** ** ***********.

    *********, *** ********** ********* ** ************ **** ***** *** ******* that *****. *********, ***** *** **** * ***** **** ** the *** ** ****** ** *** *** **** ****. ********, the ********* *** **** **** **** *****.

    During their premeditations, do Texas murderers consider New Mexico as a more 'business friendly' state in which to perpetrate, due to their lack of the death penalty?

    Not the Ferguson effect, since it took place months before, but IMHO, indicative of the generous, if not dangerous tolerance LE exhibits. I can't say for sure why they don't take action, but I can say for sure that when I grew up that scene would have lasted all of about 30 seconds.