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 uptick in violence."
What do you think?
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 commit it—rather they’re deeply flawed individuals that play into a complex environment that motivates or discourages behavior.
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 U.S. Constitution and NOT racially profile or stop and frisk without actual probable cause is not an answer to this problem.
"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 they would loathe to be associated with, agree/disagree?
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' cause.
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.
As Steve so rightfully pointed out (imo) in the first comment in this string:
"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—rather they’re deeply flawed individuals that play into a complex environment that motivates or discourages behavior."
"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 empirically proven "
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, no?
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, no?"
My point in a nutshell - going both ways.
If you look at no other factors except those that support your own position, then you will generally continue to support that same position.
2 different Alexander Pope quotes come to mind:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again."
and my favorite:
"All seems infected that the infected spy, as all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye."
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 they all told you X, wouldn't your opinion be affected?
Should he not share this knowledge with others?
Are you saying you don't believe these conversations took place or that they don't mean anything even if they did?
p.s. What's the categoric difficulty is (dis)-proving a negative?
"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:
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 people 'do their jobs' (whatever it is this means), yet are told they can't use this practice - as in this case.
If I surveyed 50 circus clowns that have just been told that white face paint is now outlawed - and these clowns think/know that white face paint is a keystone principle that helps them do their jobs better (whatever it is this means), I would expect a certain bias in the results if I asked them why circus attendance is way down.
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:
Jeff is a tall male. No problem there.
Jeff is truly knowledgable and completely biased. Sounds wrong.
IMHO, because of this dissonance people tend to polarize into one of the two groups over time.
Your efforts to achieve are more realistic balance are therefore to be commended!
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 and will continue to find other strawmen to blame
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 authorities from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures?
"Profiling exists for a reason - because the enormous amount of data gathered on violent offenders shows LE who they should be stopping."
This statement appears to show that you disagree with the federal courts - which struck down NYC's stop and frisk racial profiling as a violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
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 frisk'.
The courts have ruled that standing around (or driving down the NJ Turnpike) possessing dark skin does not rise to the legal threshold of probable cause. It's really that simple.
Law enforcement personnel have one of the toughest jobs there is - but this doesn't mean that they can engage in practices that violate constitutional protections.
Whether these practices can be shown to be effective - or not - isn't the issue, imo.
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 questioning; only reasonable suspicion that one has, is, or is about to occur. As part of that interview process (since known as a Terry stop), police may search for weapons in your possession -- hence the term "stop and frisk." Nevertheless, the color of one's skin alone is not reasonable suspicion.
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 bully cop types that enjoy the power over others the position brings... I'm talking about the very human phenomenon of the 'us vs them' mentality creep.
Even officers who join with the highest of asperations to 'serve and protect' can fall victim - after immersion into the daily filth and repetitive stupidy of being the 'blue wall' that separates 'average' citizens from these elements - to, over time, start seeing everything from the 'us vs them' perspective. This is the real danger, imo.
The 'them' then, become dehumanized enough that confrontations - even over minor infractions - can escalate to death simply for non-compliance.
All cops are humans. The best ones are actually humanists.
You don't seem to give much consideration to the rights of the victims, or potential victims. In NYC "Stop and Frisk" is down 42% for the year - here's what has happened with that reduction:
The following excerpt is from this article dated June 5
"There were 11,652 stops across the city through June 3 — projecting to roughly 28,000 for the year, records obtained by the Daily News show. As the number of stops fell, the number of murders spiked 19.5% during the first five months of the year, the number of people shot is up 9.2% and the number of shooting incidents jumped 9% "
“What you’re seeing now are the perps carrying their guns because they’re not afraid to carry them,” said Ed Mullins, head of the Sergeants Benevolent Association. “We’ve created an atmosphere where we’ve handcuffed the police. We are sitting back, taking a less proactive approach.”
I'm sure you'd welcome the chance to explain to the victims family how important it is to protect the rights of suspects and perpetrators with the court's interpretation of unreasonable search
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 choose to 'fight crime' as long as it is effective (by whatever standards you apply) - then so be it.
I'm sure you'd welcome the chance to show your papers whenever law enforcement deemed the color of your skin suspicious enough to demand them.
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 to seek their 15 minutes (more like 15 days) of fame. I congradulate their character and integrity to refuse to ignite a volatile situation.
Law enforcement has a tough job to do and they aren't perfect but would you do it any differently if you went to work everyday not knowing you would return to your family because you hesitated?
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 shortages of police resources. If you can't patrol everywhere, the thought was, then at least patrol where crime is most likely to occur.
As a reserve deputy sheriff, I make a point of being near the bar scene at its closing time. Why? Because fights often occur there and then. In doing so, it is no coincidence that most of our contacts with the public at that time are with people who are drunk.
Similarly, with regard to an entire neighborhood, it stands to reason that increased police presence in areas of higher criminal activity will result in more frequent contacts with residents of that area. When those residents disproportionately belong to a particular ethnic group, it also stands to reason that disproportionately more contacts will be with members of that group -- without any bias on the part of the police.
(However, this does not justify arrests without probable cause or Terry stops without reasonable suspicion)
Pulling police away from these areas, whether due to court orders or the Ferguson Effect, will result in more crime in those areas. To disagree would be to claim that police activity does not reduce crime in the first place.
"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 a rise of it coming in. When asked why, one detainee said, "Everybody knows to not cook meth here." So while we displaced the crime of making meth, chances are we did little to reduce the crime of consumption.
Similarly, the nationwide crackdown on prescription drug abuse has reduced that crime. Meanwhile, there has been a sharp rise in the use of heroin to get the same high. Arguably, the situation may have been made worse.
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.
Without drawing conclusions yet, would anyone deny that the public treats LE with less respect every year?
Still not drawing conclusions, does anyone think that a reason for that is that the public does not fear them as much?
Draw conclusions, if criminals are not afraid of cops as much, why wouldn't crime increase?
Pretty sure the reason the public respects LE less and less every year isn't because they fear them less.
The reason the public respects LE less and less every year is because of the sense the public has, that law enforcement becomes more overbearing and less respectful of the general public.
In other words, the public respects LE less because they feel a sense of resentment towards them due to their trying to use force and fear of force to enforce the law more and more.
In other other words, the reason for this lack of respect is exactly the opposite of what you think it is.
Source: read the comments of every single news story, YouTube video, blog post, tweet, and Facebook post involving law enforcement. People will not only tell you what they think but why they think it. Gauging public opinion is not difficult in the age of social media.
"The reason the public respects LE less and less every year is because of the sense the public has, that law enforcement becomes more overbearing and less respectful of the general public."
I agree but it does beg the question why the feel this way? Are the police worse / more abusive now than before? Or are people more sensitive now?
My perception is that millenials, on average, are more sensitive than previous generations. There's diminishing tolerance and respect for orders or constraint.
This is obviously debatable, feel free to it. Related - google results on millennials sensitive
Is there data available on Americans' attitudes towards law enforcement, broken down by age?
The reason the public respects LE less and less every year is because of the sense the public has, that law enforcement becomes more overbearing and less respectful of the general public.
But has law enforcement become more overbearing, or is that just an Internet age perception?
Do you think that the LE in the video were overbearing?
Perhaps, the camera was keeping the lid on two otherwise hotheaded cops. It didn't come off that way to me though; by looking at their weary faces I got the impression that this was no novel situation.
Even if they were kept in check by the camera, you don't believe the cops were out of line, do you?
Yet the cameraman narrates as if this was almost Rodney King all over again, even though it appears to be the most routine of police work.
Realistically speaking, it doesn't matter. The general public is less and less inclined to give officers the benefit of the doubt nowadays, due in part to the rise of YouTube videos showing misbehavior, including and especially of what looks to the untrained eye to be excessive violence towards suspects. It doesn't matter if the police are or aren't being more brutal and trigger happy, what matters is that the general public thinks they are- witness, for example, the clamor for body cameras. Which is why police have to bend over backwards to give every impression of propriety and fairness in every interaction with the public, especially apprehensions. That's the only way law enforcement in this country will regain the trust of the general public.
That said, police heavy-handedness is becoming more prominent in the general consciousness through, for example, books like these. Every bungled no-knock raid, every news story on civil forfeiture abuse, and every police shooting in mysterious circumstances fuels the public's resentment, and that isn't healthy for a democracy. Increasing command presence isn't going to ensure compliance, it's going to increase defiance, and that isn't good for officer safety. Every cop who acts like a jerk is just setting up the next cop for a fight. The situation is going to explode sooner or later, and absolutely no one is going to be happy when it does.
"It doesn't matter if the police are or aren't being more brutal and trigger happy, what matters is that the general public thinks they are- witness, for example, the clamor for body cameras. Which is why police have to bend over backwards to give every impression of propriety and fairness in every interaction with the public, especially apprehensions."
It matters to society as a whole. If police have gone berserk and are ramping up efforts to kill minorities, the police are a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. If the public has gotten whiny / overly sensitive, then we are undermining the police / public safety to make a portion of the population feel emotionally better. Surely the truth is somewhere in between and we can debate on which side it points more to but I do think the cause matters.
I suppose that's a good point. But I think reasonable people can and should be concerned with increased militarization, especially the increased use of forced entry and no-knock raids for non violent offences, as well as civil forfeiture abuse.
Ari, I agree that LE is getting more overbearing and less respectful everyday of citizens rights.
I just don't think it's the policeman so much as the police machine. The information machine that is.
Do you really think that the beat cop is more abusive in their public interactions than 20 years ago or 30 years ago?
I think that there have always been those cops on the street who abuse, now we're just able to see more of it, but because of that there's probably less of it.
The police machine is another story altogether.
The degree of systemic abuse of citizens rights of privacy due to rampant data collection, is shocking, and easier to overlook. Because there is no emotional video to attach our outrage to, it is largely unchecked.
Actually, I do think that over the past 30 years police have become... not abusive, precisely, but authoritarian and domineering, inclined to demand respect rather than inspire it. Part of that, of course, is the legacy of things like the drug wars and the North Hollywood Shootout. 9/11 greatly accelerated a trend that was already in place, with police officers acting more like soldiers patrolling unfriendly territory than like constables keeping their beats safe. Nineties era initiatives like community policing and verbal judo, created to try to bring policing back to its roots fell by the wayside when every department decided to strengthen their response capabilities. The standard patrol uniforms of today is emblematic of this change when compared to the standard uniforms of the 70s and 80s. Cops today dress like soldiers and are encouraged to think of themselves like soldiers, and soldiers need a war to fight, and an enemy to fight against.
Things would be a lot calmer today if police followed George Thompson more and Daryl Gates less. Like I said, it's not about who deserves what. It's about results. I believe that there's two way to ensure compliance without compromising police effectiveness. You can force compliance or you can encourage it. The problem with force is that you have to use more and more of it, and that's a road none of us wants to go down. You can't demand compliance, that ship has sailed. You have to persuade.
Actually, I do think that over the past 30 years police have become... not abusive, precisely, but authoritarian and domineering...
Fair enough. I have had thankfully few interactions, so I have little direct knowledge. Also, when I do interact I become the spineless "Yes, officer. Thank you for the ticket Officer" citizen that's unlikely to get harassed either by cops today or of yesteryear.
As for this last posted video though, I still haven't seen your opinion of how the cops acted. I am curious though.
"Yes, officer. Thank you for the ticket Officer" citizen that's unlikely to get harassed either by cops today or of yesteryear."
How is that spineless? I agree many people today consider that spineless but what is expected today? Shout at police as soon as they approach us saying we know our rights and that they can't kill us because we have them on camera?
I agree many people today consider that spineless but what is expected today?
Well, I bet a majority of millennials do turn on their phone's video capture or at least call someone when pulled over, even for just minor infractions.
Back in the day the daring move would be to ask for the officer's badge number, today I assume one can just scan it's QR code...
Unless you have some LE background you have very little understanding of the the work they do during a "normal" shift. Judging behaviors and reactions on sound bites only gives the public part of the story and not the whole story. If it was your life on the line how would you process data in real time? Having responded to break-ins with a PD in the wee hours of the morning and been in an active shooting war most people have little reference points of being in the moment of a crisis. Video clips that do not provide what happened before something went wrong is simply wrong.
If you equate law enforcement in this country with being in a shooting war, you're part of the problem.
Paul,
I think you are making a mistake in concluding that 'without being a cop' that others can not understand the daily grind that makes up the average day on the job working in law enforcement.
To the contrary, I think most reasonable people understand the mind-numbing quagmire of dealing - every day - with the fringes of society that the average person not only doesn't want to deal with, but in addition, expect LE to protect them from. It sure aint an easy gig - and no one is saying it is.
Now. With that said, a lot of the words typed above by Ari are simply reality. I'm positive that Ari wishes things were different, but he has a keen eye for the 'what is' (imo) - and is stating the truth. He is not an agitator - he has no horse in this race. But based on your replies in this string, it appears (to me at least) that you do. You are pro-LE and that is cool.
So, the following may cause you to belly laugh out loud - but I consider myself pro-LE as well.
I have been labeled the token leftist by others (and I can understand that this string is certainly no defense to that sentiment), but I don't think I'm a leftist at all.
I'm into fairness. That simple.
Of course, life isn't fair a lot of the time - and so be it.
But I think a lot of people are 'into fairness'... and when they perceive a lack of such in their interactions with LE, well then you can complain about it all you like, but that don't solve shit.
I don't need to list examples of situations where the general public's perception of 'fairness' in interactions with LE has been eroded - there are simply too many.
Restore the 'fairness' balance and this problem evaporates - IMO.
but I don't think I'm a leftist at all... I'm into fairness...
Me too. Isn't everyone?
IMHO, both sides sincerely believe they are doing the right thing.
Being leftist is about what you consider fair, not if you are fair or not.
Actually I don't believe that everyone is 'into fairness'. Far from it.
I may be old and jaded, but I see repeated examples of people who are more into 'getting theirs' than they are into being 'fair' - each and every day.
To your point of 'perception of fairness', I agree with you that this is the nexus of most any conflict - one side thinks they are being more fair than the other.
And I am not immune either - we all do things to benefit ourselves and our loved ones... and sometimes these things are to the detriment (or at the expense) of others and/or their loved ones. You are right about how we each perceive what is fair and what isn't - we all possess our own biases.
IMO, what is 'fair' is better judged by many than by any individual.
So back to the case at hand...
Because LE has been granted the ability/option to take an individuals liberty (or life), the public's 'perception of fairness' will always be magnified and somewhat distorted.
This burden worn by LE - because of their position of power - is what it is. Is it 'fair' to LE? Probably not. But that doesn't make it any less real, IMO.
And LE are humans just like the rest of us... they will all have good and bad days just like the rest of us.
Now, the 'rest of us' can have bad days, snap at the spouse, kick our dogs (metaphorically) and generally be nasty to others as a result of our bad days. The thing is, LE can't exhibit these types of things when they have their bad days - or they end up on YouTube and CNN.
Is that fair? Not hardly. But it is part of the burden you accept when you carry the badge and strap on your gun. You are, and should be, judged to a higher standard because of this.
LE has to be MORE fair and LESS provocative than the average citizens they have to deal with. And that shit aint fair.
I don't need to list examples of situations where the general public's perception of 'fairness' in interactions with LE has been eroded - there are simply too many.
Although I suspect that perceptions of being treated unfairly are much more apt to result in vocalizing and calling attention to a situation, than those who feel LE has treated them fairly/assisted them--which would far outweigh negative interactions.
....the victim who experienced an officer assisting them after being robbed at gunpoint is not as likely to launch a social media campaign about it as the guy who feels he was pulled over because of his race.
I am not condoning the negative events (every walk of life/occupation has them), yet reporting of negative events is likely much greater than positive events.
....the victim who experienced an officer assisting them after being robbed at gunpoint is not as likely to launch a social media campaign about it as the guy who feels he was pulled over because of his race.
Well, yeah, that's obviously true. But the solution to that is to bend over backwards to avoid giving the appearance of heavyhandedness or racism, so that when the video hits YouTube, fair minded people say "that cop was fair and polite, I don't know what you're complaining about". The solution is not to have the head of the PBA go on TV to complain about how dangerous and difficult the job of a police officer is. Lots of people have dangerous and difficult jobs. No one cares. But all those people know that acting like a schmuck to the customers gets you fired, and rightly so.
Every police officer who uses command presence to ensure compliance before at least trying verbal judo is setting up the next cop.
To pretend that perceptions aren't important and don't affect people's actions is to ignore human nature. You can't force people to comply, not without turning into a fascist state. You have to convince people to comply, by making them want to comply, and by convincing them that complying is fair.
"But the solution to that is to bend over backwards to avoid giving the appearance of heavyhandedness or racism"
You know, there are still real criminals in the US, white, black, brown, etc. It's like video analytic sensitivity. You make the analytic less sensitive, less false alerts (abuse) but you miss real issues (crime). And I specifically mean your 'bend over backwards' comment, because some people are 'real' criminals and if they know you are going to 'bend over backwards', criminals will take advantage of that.
I know for a fact that it is possible to be polite and courteous and still be an effective police officer. You can be polite without seeming like a pushover. You can be courteous without seeming cowardly. If a police officer can't treat people with dignity and respect without having criminals think they can take advantage of him or her, they need to find other work.
"police officer can't treat people with dignity and respect"
And the people who treat police officers with no dignity and respect?
Who deserves more 'dignity and respect'? The people who are trying to defend the laws and our safety or the people who are suspected of violating them?
Deserve has nothing to do with it. Lack of respect towards the general public leads to anger and resentment with leads to difficulty by the police gaining compliance and cooperation of the general public which leads to the job of police officers being more difficult and dangerous. In a perfect world, everyone would respect everyone else, but we don't live in a perfect world.
You don't get milk out of a cow by yelling at it. You gotta stroke it a little. Same with people. You can't force people to not be jerks, you have to convince them that they shouldn't be.
"Lack of respect towards the general public leads to anger and resentment."
No, expectations by the public of being treated by the police like a customer at a restaurant leads to anger and resentment.
They are the police, if they are 'mean' to me or order me to do something I don't want in the course of an investigation, so be it.
Ferguson / Michael Brown is a perfect example of that. The 'people' objected / confronted the officer, the suspect lied, created this fiction of a racist cop and the police officer was condemned until he was exonerated both locally and federally.
No, expectations by the public of being treated by the police like a customer at a restaurant leads to anger and resentment.
And maybe it's dumb that people feel that way, but they do, and there's no way to change that anymore. Law enforcement can recognize that fact and figure out how to make it work for them, or refuse to recognize that fact and make their jobs more and more difficult until it gradually becomes impossible. Since law enforcement is a really important function of civil society, I'd rather it not become impossible to enforce.
Well, if and when crime starts swinging back the other way, we will see how people feel, ergo this discussion.
This article is just comparing 2015 to 2014. That doesn't have much meaning. Is 2015 just a high statistical outlier, and things will go back to normal next year? Was 2014 a low statistical outlier, making 2015 look worse than it really was? How do both of these years fit in with long-term trends? There is not enough information presented in the article to draw any conclusions, certainly not enough data to draw any conclusions as to cause. Nothing but speculation and political posturing. Very poor journalism in my opinion.
Remember, there are 3 classes of liars: liars, damn liars and statisticians.
U.S. Murders Surged in 2015, F.B.I. Finds
The 10.8 percent increase in the rate of murders from 2014 to 2015 represented the largest year-to-year jump in at least 20 years
The article is contradictory. "Some say" vs "while no one knows for sure" vs "many experts disagree with that theory". The writers are cherry picking facts to tell us what we already know while explaining nothing. This is the worst kind of journalism. Sorry, this is wasted electrons.
I am not one to shut the evidence out when confronted by the statistics that support what I experience myself. Deadly crime is on the rise and I have seen extreme violence at a Trump rally. The police were obviously not given reign to restore order or to stop attacks. We all have heard that certain mayors are told to "let them go" by the head of a political party. Well that tells me all I need to know about where the problem comes from. The cure? New pro-order leadership.
Not to debate a very serious topic in this forum, but when you say you have seen violence at Trump rallies, violence by whom?
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.
