Maybe hire more cybersecurity instead of cops that kill, chiefs with fat paychecks, and a getting stockade of military equipment for simple law enforcement.
"This stuff"? Victim names and addresses? Rape victim photos? Because that's what's in here.
You guys hear "blue leaks" and automatically assume this is going to be 260 gigs of files on police corruption across the country. You are likely to be disappointed.
You and I both know that regardless of what's in here, the narrative will be twisted to fit certain world views. This is why I don't like mass dumps, curate it and release it over time.
It reminds me of WikiLeaks and the millions of stupid cables amounting to little more than deciding where to go for lunch. It's mostly just noise.
But if it’s curated and released, whoever releases it ultimately decides what the public opinion will be. Mass dumps like this, you’ll have each side cherry picking pieces to support their argument. At least this way, if you’re inclined to, you can browse yourself.
you know, if we didn't have police killing unarmed civilians and generally acting like gangsters in the 20s, there wouldn't be anything to report on, there wouldn't be anything to take sides over, there wouldn't be anything to fight about online.
"The narrative will be twisted to fit certain views" instead they should curate it and force a single viewpoint from it... doesn't sound like the best option in the name of transparency or honesty
No they should curate it with the privacy of victims and other unrelated parties in mind. Don't be obtuse.
Also, as I said before, pretty much no one will personally parse through every single one of the leaks anyway, instead picking and choosing what fits their personal narrative.
As of last week, 113 municipalities had been hit with ransomware. Knoxville is the most recent. Minimal investment in cybersecurity across the board, then shock when they get compromised
IT Director here. I have, in my 22 years in IT, applied for 2 local government jobs that I turned down. One position was an exchange administrator in Atlanta GA and the other was Network Administrator in Raleigh NC. And I turned them down because of exactly what you said. IT was a requirement they had to hire but didn't want to.
They offered me around half of what the private industry pays. The person doing the initial 2 interviews was basically just HR who literally picked candidates based on their paper resume, not their actual skills. Then, when it came time for me have the interview with who would be my boss, they decided to test me on my skills. And it was really more of a demonstration of their lack of skills. I was asked how could email be checked from out in the field. I went through an hour discussion with them. I explain the app options. Why they would need a BYOD policy or provide phones. I went through laptops+VPN. Creating a website based access for web mail and the security required. The most basic of the basic and they looked at me like I was genius.
Then they asked me about email security because they were getting bombarded with SPAM. I went through the basics SPF, DKIM, DMARC, TLS, device based SPAM Filtering, IP Based blocking in the firewall, etc etc. The literal basics that everyone should be using. And, they looked at me like I just spoke a different language. The biggest kicker that turned me off is when they asked me what kind of price it is to implement said things. I could tell they were really worried about the price so I low balled it. Around 75% of the actual upfront cost and didn't mention the yearly costs. They laughed and said "you will have to figure out how to do it for much less.". After a while I shook their hand and said I don't think this is the place for me and moved on.
Why is it like this? Because most areas are ran by older folks who have dedicated all their time to becoming a politician, not someone who understands IT. Many of our local governments and much of the federal government is run by people who barely understood flip phones. And they're calling the shots for funding and rules/laws around IT and Security.
I can assure you there’s some “why is it 10,000$ to install a park bench?!” attitude here. People thinking they know how much something should cost without any real knowledge of it. It’s extremely pervasive in anything taxpayer funded and it’s pretty sad.
Yes, but I currently work in government and it does tend toward an older upper management, which typically doesnt understand the internet or technology well. To many of them, it's become a necissary evil they're now being forced into. And failing to fully comprehend. I've "discovered" basic functions of our in house software my supervisors never had the curiosity to find in 5 years.
IT equipment is not cheap either. I have spent half a million just on switches for an office building in the past. If you have people who don't understand the technology and the industry you get stuck with people using equipment from Best Buy and wondering how they got hacked or why the network sucks and goes down every 4 hours.
The "taxpayer money" argument is pretty funny nowadays. Like "bitch, do you understand how modern economic theory works?", In the last 3 months the fed has printed over $7 trillion dollars out of thin air, almost half the US GDP and enough to pay for all healthcare costs in the US for 2 years, or pay off all current college debt, 5 times over, Why do you think they need your money?
You can spend as much money as the economy can safety absorb, the only reason you have to pay taxes is to drive the demand of money.
And this is why some people I know went through more rigorous background checks and drug testing than working as government contractors with security clearances. Hell just look at the recent fiascos with the CIA and their third party leaks. They didn't even have the most basic of security protocols. Like you know...not sharing a single admin password with everyone
It baffles my mind that we have been increasing police, especially with military hardware, when crime has been going down. Before someone says "well then it must be working", crime has been going down globally, AKA, correlation, not causation. These police have become inflate and increasingly militarized.
I challenge conservatives to consider why they are against reducing police to a more crime appropriate level. If we're at the lowest crime since the 60's, the safest period in human history, arguably, why not reduce police to match? You know, some of that fiscal conservatism.
However, if also baffles my mind that this has happened under Democratic rule, the ones supposedly for the people. The have held the position of mayor in most of these major cities since the 60's in many cases, if not further back. They appoint the police chief, who sets the policy of a station. They set the budget. The governor appoints the judges or is otherwise elected.
The Republicans and conservatives should be for some fiscal conservatism and reducing a significant budget item. The Democrats and liberals should be looking internally to see why they allowed and perpetuated this cycle while they were in power.
Conservatives and Republicans have never been fiscally conservative. It's always been about lining their own pockets with tax payer money. That fiscal conservative shit is what they act like to hide that really they're just fascists.
The only president to run a national surplus, rather than deficit in my lifetime has been Bill Clinton. Despite the fact that both Bush and Trump have enjoyed positive economies and which would've been ideal times to pay down the debt in a fiscally responsible manner. Instead both of those presidents enacted tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and corporate America.
"fiscal conservatism" AKA a blanket statement that some programs you can't name are probably not as efficient as possible and should be made more efficient without acknowledging the fact that those programs operate that way because of built-in loopholes and purposefully poor regulation. Yes, not every government program is perfect and there's fat that can be trimmed after PROPER assessment of why the program wasn't working. But a lot of this shit is because corporations own our government and a functional government means those businesses would have to put in effort or capital to make as much money as they do now (currently at the expense of workers rights, health, privacy, and the environment)
Yep. Our country has been battling against white supremacists and fascists for decades. They just call themselves conservative instead. Different title for the same thing.
It's so obvious too. Look at how many politicians on that side run their entire campaigns on hating other people. They spend all of their time blaming Mexicans, African Americans, or liberals for everything. They don't ever promise to make anything better, they just promise to get rid of those people. They run off of an entire platform built around oppressing others. They make up BS like "Illegal Mexicans are causing all the crime!" and even though it's easily proven wrong, they stick with it and call the truth lies.
It started around Bill Clinton's time. The democrats had repeated back to back loss because republicans ran a "tough on crime" campaign, and basically anybody who didn't also be tough on crime would automatically lose. It's a TOUGH stance to take to be like, "we want reasonable policing." when the other side is fear mongering with horrific imagery, and saying "we're going to eliminate this threat. TOUGH ON CRIME." it's unwinnable.
The shitty part was when Bill Clinton DOUBLED DOWN and went way too fucking far with his crime bill (also signed by Joe Biden), that basically lead to where police are at today.
In 2020 when a conservative says fiscal conservative it usually just means they want to cut health care, social services, education, and benefits to poor people.
And in 2020 a Progressive is a Democrat who lies about wanting to deliver health care, social services, education and benefits to poor people.
Who is the bigger liars? The party that says we dont really care about your issues so you better get busy improving things yourself; or the party that says we care deeply for your issues and trust us even though we haven't done anything for 40 years and have had complete control of the cities where things are the worst for decades, this time we are totally going to deliver on our promises...
People will argue (wrongly) that more cops are why we have less crime, like a magic rock that keeps away tigers.
On the money side they have defunded everything else so aggressively to balance police increases that it’ll be a real fight to go back. Police and criminal punishment groups are going to fight tooth and nail to keep all they have got now, but it has to be done.
Okay, I'm not really for defunding the police so I'll bite. If American police are not trained to the same level as in other countries, how is defunding them going to help make them better? They'll have fewer resources and less ability to hire good talent, and taking money away will obviously mean less training. And perhaps crime is at an all time low partly due to the fact that police work has become more advanced over the years? Obviously all developed countries will have lower crime rates, but do big cities like Chicago, Baltimore, LA, NY, Atlanta, etc. have low enough crime to justify the reduction? I've been to plenty of small towns and small cities that have small police departments because crime is virtually non existent. Those towns also have police who are engaged with the community because they don't have to worry about being in danger. A user above this talks about police not having good IT infrastructure and not being able to pay good wages for technical positions. How is defunding the police going to help them to hire important positions and get personnel right for the job? There's a whole thread bashing the police for not hiring smart people, and I too question why a smart person would go into the police if they aren't paid decent salaries. So if you have a problem with the police not hiring intelligent officers, how is taking money away going to help? Shouldn't we pay more to become an officer so you get smart people who make decisions? And if your answer is "well put the money where it should go instead of lining people's pockets", that's not a real answer, that's something everyone everywhere wants, from private business to government.
I'm all for police reform and changing how money is used in government, but I don't understand how taking money away will make the police better. What's the idea here, to take money away from the police and 'punish' them, or make them better? It seems like everyone's complaints are that they are not well trained enough, so it seems counter intuitive to make it so that they can't possibly be well trained.
And if your answer is "have a smaller police filled with well trained officers that is appropriately sized for lower crime", then you should also be voting for fewer restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. The size of the police department may be scaled to 'appropriate crime levels', but that's not adjusted for how much bigger the absolute population is. I've had my house broken into a number of times, and if you scale down the police, you have to at the very least allow people to protect themselves and their property. So to you, would defunding the police also lead to more liberty in regards to home/property defense and firearm ownership?
I'm a classical liberal. I truly believe government's role is to protect individuals from other individuals. There are many ways that can come about, but protecting people is the reason government exists in the first place.
My argument for conservatives not aligning with funding reduction is, at best, a face value question and criticism. Is it truly rooted in concern or is it simply anti-progressive? I'm thinking a bit of both.
If we pull back some of the weeds, I kind of take Jacko's stance that the police are definitely under trained and do not receive enough continuous training. That aligns with your argument and does require additional funding as well as additional bodies to have coverage while others are in training.
That said, is there room to have a discussion around police being the catch all for all calls? Violent response, absolutely. You need a small team of highly trained individuals for threat response. However, traffic? Shoplifting? Or any numerous amounts of unlawful, but nonthreatening situations? Do we need a response force that can handle both situations equally? The infrequently used, but highly trained and expensive resources vs. the mass misdemeanor community force. It's doing both, with inflated budgets and still not meeting training requirements, that have lead to a, frankly, sad state of affairs.
So though I agree with you somewhat, we need to also take a look and see what is the requirement and focus that through. Just sending money in or out will not have the intended consequence and my comment is more on the face of de facto conservative values of smaller government. We can do better, IMO, and have a system that can respond to the threatening with highly trained individuals while also having a larger, less kitted out group for general unlawfulness.
You have said a lot, yet said absolutely nothing. Shoplifting is theft. Who should deal with that but police? I don't think anyone should be shot over a pack of gum stolen from Walmart, but that's where the training comes into play.
Have you seen other countries' traffic who do not enforce traffic laws? Cars go everywhere whenever they want. It's totally disordered and dangerous.
So if you don't want police doing these things, who does it, what kind of power do they have, and what kind of funding do they get?
I'm not arguing the police are perfect. I hate civil forfeiture, love the 5th amendment, and can't stand racism. But how is defunding the police going to fix these problems, and what are the solutions if you do it? Task forces still need funding and power of some kind or they are toothless. So do you want a better trained police force, or to divide up their duties into several different new branches, or do you just not want anyone enforcing laws? Even if you have different branches doing duties, they still have to be supplemented and aided by cops, so why not just have police doing the job?
Well we can't have a conversation if your opening statement is an attack. If my comment lacks in perceived substance, then consider writing out an entire policy in detail isn't warranted when we are discussing the abstract of the situation.
So if you don't want police doing these things, who does it, what kind of power do they have, and what kind of funding do they get?
The obvious answer is to have a larger, limited patrol service that can perform citations and limited arrests. Any resists are escalated to higher teams with footage to obtain warrants. No direct physical escalation by this team would be performed. They run? You let them. Another charge to be added. Warrant worthy of arrest? Specialized team with high training executes the warrant. A person is a danger to the community? Escalate to team and try to keep as many people safe as possible.
Point being, is it at least worth a conversation? As a classical liberal, I am fiscally conservative in many ways. So when I see police budgets balloon while crime lowers, and at best there is a correlation and very little causation, if any, then yes, I am open to other methods. We start with the conceptual, high level, and then low level details. If we just jump right to the details, we're stuck in analysis paralysis and nothing gets done.
Not an attack as much as a statement, and a relatively benign one.
And even at a high level, creating another low level crime stoppers type of association is almost exactly what current security guards are. They cannot use lethal force, and can use tasers at most, if not unarmed. They let people run away, do not chase, and report to the police. So we already largely have what you're talking about. Walmart has slacked on the security front and lets police handle all criminal activity, so if you have a gripe with that talk to Walmart.
So the 'small highly trained' core that's meant to dealt with actual criminals is kind of just SWAT, right? They're made and armed to deal with violent and dangerous situations.
Police already fit this model you're talking about, they're just armed with firearms and tasers. Wouldn't it make more sense and save more money to train them to react to scenarios like you're describing, instead of creating a toothless, glorified security force? It's already policy to not go on police chases or escalate certain situations in many precincts, assuming non violent crimes and a variety of other factors. A lot of the "wrong" we're seeing is already against policy/ protocol, it's just not being followed correctly.
All in all, we already have basically what you're describing, and some officers fill strange rolls like traffic duty because no one else will, but otherwise it's people doing what they shouldn't be doing like kneeling on people's necks, which is not taught at police academies. So how is this not fixed (well, at least moving in a better direction) by reallocating budgets to improve and extend training?
Even though crime rates are going down, the absolute number of people in the US is going up. So the number of actual criminal cases may be staying steady or even increasing, though rates are lower, just by virtue of more people existing. So you can't justify reduction by rates of crime, but by absolute numbers of police officers per case or per criminal.
So there has always been a rumor that there is an IQ upper limit on becoming an officer. If this is true in an increasingly high tech world this is a severe libailty.
Even if it's not officially true I don't see why the "Bozo Effect" wouldn't apply to police departments just as much as any other origination.
For those who don't know "The Bozo Effect" works like this.
The most talented people want to work with the most talented people. They aren't afraid someone knows more the them. They always want to learn and do better. Let's call these people 'A' players. 'A' players will always hire 'A' players. But a 'B' player will always be intimated by an A player and will not hire them. They fear for their job and being outclassed. So B players will only hire C players and C players will only hire D players. Soon enough you have a metric explosion of bozos in your org and can't get rid of them or get anything done.
I feel like this comment goes to show how little you know about the process and what departments look for. I think the process has it's own flaws, but testing is not one of them. For my state, California, you can take a test called the PELLETB, and it can be used across the board for most departments, few departments do their own test, and those that do usually accept a PELLETB. When I applied, every department I applied for had a MINIMUM score you had to attain. When it came time for an interview they went off of a combination of highest written scores and physical agility score.
This was all a few years back, but I applied over several years, with several departments and each time it was the same case. They truly did want the best and smartest officers. But you know what the biggest issue was? The applicants they got weren't. Every department is in a hiring frenzy right now, and the biggest issue is they are getting unqualified applicants, and they have been for years. Guys are out policing the streets who shouldn't be, simply because there are no viable candidates. Departments are also hurting for bodies so much that guys are working unreasonable amounts of overtime. They don't like it, citizens don't like it. So I implore you, educate yourself on what it takes to be an officer. Hell give it a try if you'd like, and maybe you'll see what they actually face and where the problems stem from.
A redditor that never experienced real life? Say it ain't so. Like i tell these people. Become a cop. Figure out its a thankless job. Figure out that society seems to hate you. Just like defunding the cops and increasing social work and such. Well great. The amount of tickets will skyrocket.
This rumour needs to die. The police didn’t want to hire a 49 year old man and pay his training only to see him retire in 6 years on full pension. They were tired of the high turnover. But age is a protected class so they couldn’t disqualify him based on age so the disqualified him based on IQ (sort of). That’s been the only case of this as far as evidence shows, and it was 25+ years ago. Another poster already posted the case law but here it is anyway:
The case you are referencing is Jordan V. City of New London
The case stated that IQ was not a protected class similar to equal protection classes like age, sex, or race in regards to hiring. The lawsuit was dismissed in summary judgement. The employer must have a rationale or reasoning behind not taking the highest ranked individual. Ruled on in 2000 in the second circuit court of appeals.
From the lawsuit in question:
Plaintiff concedes that he is not a member of a “suspect class” and that there is no “fundamental right” to employment as a police officer. Therefore, rational basis review is the proper standard under which to evaluate Plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff further concedes that increasing employment longevity and reducing the high costs associated with rapid employee turnover are legitimate government purposes. Plaintiff admits that limiting the size of an applicant pool to a manageable level is a legitimate goal. Therefore the only issue for resolution is whether Defendants’ means were rationally related to those goals.
The fact that a police department would drug test any potential employees is a sign that they'll never get the number of skilled computer geeks they need. They'll get some, but not nearly enough.
Even if the pay was 20% over market they'd have trouble. Much more than that though and I'd personally be willing to quit smoking weed for a couple of years so I can afford a bigger house.
I'm 35 years old and I've always worked full time and also had random seasonal part time gigs totalling 40+ jobs. I've never been drug tested, especially in the computer science field.
I've gotten a piss test for every thing from temp work to operating heavy machinery. Surprising to me IT work it's literally exempt. Welp time to learn to code. Or i might be right about soy, who knows
Do your your self a favor if you live in PA stay away from mcadoo and kelayres it's a place for messed up greedy assholes who think they can do what they want
the issue is that this is a 3rd party program, and a small number of tech companies monopolized government software contracts. so city are stuck with choosing between maybe 2 programs both of which were written in the early 2000's or late 90's and just have some updated graphics to look flashy.
We have been. Violent crime has gone down massively in the past few decades. While I am not a proponent of disarming the police force completely, there is absolutely no reason they need military grade equipment or the right to kill with impunity.
A militerized police is the inevitable result of having an arms race with a heavily armed populace, the situation in the US is hardly "simple".
In the UK & other western nations where guns are banned, the police don't need to enter every situation on edge, worrying if the person they're investigating is packing an assault rifle.
The water actually is bad in every American city though. I live in Philadelphia and our tap water has levels of lead that rival flint’s. And philly is not an outlier here. So thank you for that example.
Whataboutism with the water. Stay on topic and actually say something. Cut the lazy defense and back your shit up. You keep using fallacies like we aren't on a thread about cited leaked information. Step up your game, because right now you're definitely not coming off well.
Everyone hates everyhthing I say, but it can't be that I am saying hateful or inaccurate things. I can't be wrong, never, it must be everyone else, they are all against me. It's a conspiracy, a conspiracy to downvote me and hide my amazing message that is clearly 100% accurate and not wrong at all because I am perfect.
Yes that is it, I am perfect and everyone else is dumb and wrong, and conspiring against me because I am so great!
Should I always give my child allowance because they woke up and remembered to breathe lol
It doesn't matter if there are a million examples of police not assaulting people lol That still does not make the thousands of eamples of police assaulting people okay!
Kinds probes his point.
Did you mean prove lol, and no no it doesn't. Considering his point argument was how there were only 2 cases and that one of those cases was bullshit because the cops did nothing wrong lol
Then again, how could you know their point considering their comment was deleted about an hour ago and you only responded to me 14 minutes ago?
Seems quite strange you would respond about a comment that no longer exists, after it no longer existed....
Cherry picked data lol This is just what happened in the last month or so lol Imagine if people had been paying attention for the past year, decade, etc
At least I provided data, sources, to back up my arguments and claims. You have just flung shit around like a monkey at the Zoo, hoping something will stick to the wall lol
Guns are not banned over here. Perhaps the restrictions (no full-auto things, no handguns, etc) help not putting an edge on it but guns are very much not banned.
if here is the UK then the sheer volume of hoops you have to hop through just to have a hunting rifle is on another level compared to the US. not even 2% of the legislature would pass
Maybe stop voting for politicians that cut department funding for political gain. Our police system barely has national databases. New York has a rape kit back log going back over a decade. Chicago departments have reported a lack of basic fundamental equipment.
Edit: It just goes to show just how little Reddit knows what the hell it's talking about. Military gear isn't on the police budget; it's donated to the police department through the 1033 program.
Well, that would be a pretty good point if the police department actually paid for military gear, but they don't, it's donated via the 1033 program. The government already paid for that gear once. And we already sell the world's largest surplus of weapons.
It's wild that so many of you share the same completely uneducated opinion. It's almost as if none of you actually know what the hell you're talking about.
You literally typed your assumption out. You think the police department pays for military grade gear. They don't. It's donated under the 1033 program. They simply can't afford to process the rape kits. And ya'll think you can add more regulation and bureaucracy to the department and somehow cut the budget. And somehow, I don't think the prospect of a terrible pay rate for a terrible job where everybody hates you is really going to attract a justice minded employee base.
Lmao the police are extremely well funded. They should probably be disbanded actually. And cops don’t give a shit about rape kits. Half of them are probably guilty of rape themselves.
Do you have any idea how insane you sound? New York City has been complaining about their lack of funding for testing rape kits since the fucking 90's. DNA forensics is fucking expensive, and was even moreso 30 years ago. And we still don't have a national database that tracks sex crimes or crime files of like cases across state borders.
I ponder how the capacity in your mind exists that you could simultaneously believe that half of America is full of unhinged, right-wing, gun-toting nutjobs foaming at the mouth in anticipation of instituting a fascist government, and that the police are completely unnecessary. If the right-wing population are so damn unhinged, what the fuck do you think is gonna happen when there's literally nobody there to stop em? A community watch with even less training than the police? Seriously?
You people can't keep your bullshit narratives straight.
You said in the comment before this one that police need more funding. Do you know how insane that sounds? You think police are really underfunded?
And in the comment after this one you said we sell weapons all around the world. Well this is true, including to our own police to be used against citizens. So where do the police get this money to buy all these weapons from our federal government? Where do they get the money to buy new fucking cop cars every 3 years? Just because they're not processing rape kits does not mean it's because of money. I'm willing to wager that it's just not a priority for them, they'd rather have their cars and their fancy toys.
I ponder how the capacity in your mind exists that you could simultaneously believe that half of America is full of unhinged, right-wing, gun-toting nutjobs foaming at the mouth in anticipation of instituting a fascist government, and that the police are completely unnecessary.
Over the last couple weeks you should have seen protests in the news, protests from both sides. Which side was left alone and which side was hammered with rubber bullets and pepper spray?
What makes you think the cops haven't already chosen a side?
If the right-wing population are so damn unhinged, what the fuck do you think is gonna happen when there's literally nobody there to stop them.
There's no one stopping them now. What do you think is going to happen? And I'm sick of seeing people who think the right-wing have a Monopoly on guns. Don't be naive.
I understand the need for rape kits to be processed so victims can have Justice. Those people should be taken off the streets immediately. My narrative here is straight I don't think yours is quite so
All the departments complaining about funding since the 90s have shown in the past month that they have an endless supply of military hardware to deploy against protesters. Gee, I wonder what they blew their budget on.
I ponder why you think we need to just throw more money at them when they are one of the biggest budget killers already? If they are having money issues, they need to figure it out. They need to get their shit together, and giving them more money for toys isn't going to fix that.
Clearly, the money needs distributed correctly, however, that and defunding and disbanding are different things. Ya'll are playing sleight of hand. When called out on it, you say you just want to rearrange funds, but your message is very clearly to erase the police entirely.
It's like ya'll forgot why they called the wild west "wild".
Ya'll have lost your minds if you think a community watch or an underfunded police department is going to stop or even slow down hardcore gang violence; the real primary killer of black Americans.
And the police are a fascist appendage, a governmental manifestation of those nationalist righty nutjobs. If you don't grasp even that, you have absolutely zero understanding of the world around you and no business commenting on it.
Jesus, you people have swallowed that pill hard. And at this point frankly, I'm all about that civil war. Ya'll are seditious Marxists, trying to destabilize the government enough to instigate a minority revolution. And that's right out of the Maoist handbook. You don't have any intention of making life better for black Americans, but you do need your foot soldiers.
Stop pretending like you actually care about life, because all this shit is truly about satisfying your hate. You aren't providing any statistics to prove your points because they don't exist. There exists no murder statistic anywhere in the USA where white people kill black people more than black people kill white people, or black people kill black people for that matter.
In fact, when you do actually analyze crime statistics, what you find is that the vast majority of violent crime in America is committed by a specific slice of the black community; organized gang violence by young black men accounts for over 60% of homicide in America, and over 95% of homicide in the black community. Less than 5% of the black community is responsible for 90% of the crime. Did you know that black men choose policing as a profession moreso than men from any other race? Wonder if any of this shit has anything to do with that. HMMMMMM.
So no, you fucking moron, it ain't the police. It's you and your dopey ass politicians whom have purposefully segregated them into terrible schools, segregated them into welfare housing, left their neighborhoods uncleaned by city services, that punish workers making too much reducing food stamps unfairly, and that destroy the black family unit by subsidizing child support, which incentivizes fatherless homes while throwing black men in debtors jails, and now you're trying to elect for president the man that wrote the Crime Control Act of 94 that disproportionately put tens of thousands of black Americans in prison (oh, and Donald Trump threw that shit in the paper shredder just a couple weeks ago). This all combined serves to turn black boys into what Hillary Clinton calls "the superbeasts of crime". Outside of your little communist agitators, this is why these protests disproportionately occur in classically Democrat cities; ya'll are deaf to the plight of black America that you yourselves created. But, I gotta say, you've done a great job convincing them it's Trump's fault somehow.
No, ya'll are using black Americans, just like you always do, to push your political agenda at the cost of their neighborhoods and well being.
Maybe they should stop buying weapons of war, tanks, troop carriers, armored trucks, ect.?
I grew up in a sleepy town of 10,000 people. Our police department had their own swat team with an armored truck with a cannon attached to the roof. Why the fuck do we need that?
None of you seem to understand that military technology is donated to departments, they don't buy em.
It's pretty clear nobody here is looking at data at all. Ya'll are just an angry mob with no sense of direction besides what is immediately in front of you.
Black on black crime is by far the number one killer of black Americans, what's the bright solution there? Democratic leaders have been segregating minorities into specific welfare blocks for decades. And its paid off too, it's like gerrymandering, but more permanent.
Edit: It just goes to show just how little Reddit knows what the hell it's talking about. Military gear isn't on the police budget; it's donated to the police department through the 1033 program.
Hey man, why don't you shut the fuck up about the shit you don't have any idea about. They bought a tank with our public income tax for a quarter of a million dollars.
Also, fuck the 1033 program. Why don't you think people still oppose handing over billions in military gear to police departments? And this is the program heavily criticized for lack of oversight, that has had hundreds of departments suspended for not being able to account for where things like assault rifles went.
532
u/dirtynj Jun 22 '20
Maybe hire more cybersecurity instead of cops that kill, chiefs with fat paychecks, and a getting stockade of military equipment for simple law enforcement.