The article specifically mentions deputies, and how they don’t spend time on violent crime, but the article never mentions ONCE, detectives, whose sole job is investigating violent crime. I’m not pro-police in any way, but… yeah. Also it seems like this article was written by an angsty teenager with lines like:
The departments were mostly non-responsive to my questions.
Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco said the data – which is self-reported – is flawed. All four departments declined to answer specific questions about how officers spend their time, and didn’t provide contradictory information.
I’m all for criticizing the police, let’s just write it a bit better next time, huh?
This is all fairly standard information for reportage involving coverage of an institution or organization–i.e., noting that they were contacted regarding the report, asking for a response, and detailing any pertinent information from the response. In this case, the response did not provide any further information on the report. What are you taking issue with? The comma splice?
Wow who would have guessed. Certainly not marxists who have been saying this for hundreds of years!
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-police-are-not-here-to-protect-you/
This user worships Lenin (known for killing over 8 million people). Look up their username and you’ll see they’re known on Reddit for posting tankie spam everywhere.
A thought-terminating cliche that has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. “Don’t listen to this person’s completely reasonable point, they’re [redscareword]”
You spam the same tired images praising Lenin who murdered 8 million people. Don’t listen to this person because they idolize mass murderers. They’re not mentally well.
Your comment didn’t bring anything meaningful to this discussion either. All you did was post a website link.
Maybe your post could actually include some meaningful discussion and comments that can stand on their own. Maybe next time?
(Also I’m not a guy, you’ve been told this before. Stop intentionally misgendering me.)
So traffic violations are something we no longer want to enforce then? Nearly 43000 deaths in 2021 from automobiles… https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-estimates-2022
When 3/4 of traffic stops are warnings you know most of them are just the typical person making dumb mistakes since warnings are typically only given to people with no recent record.
No idea why “resonable suspicion” crimes are such a big focus.
Better roads help prevent crashes. People won’t change just because they got a ticket. “Drive as fast as you can afford” is a warning I got when learning to drive. If all it is is a $300 ticket there are people who are more inconvenienced from being stopped than paying the fine. People don’t care about car crashes.
Then you have to increase fines, make it a percentage of the person’s income that hurts everybody equally.
Sounds to me like you just want to hurt people as opposed to fixing the problem.
You got to realize 100% of anything isn’t feasible. Having better road engineering, and reducing the number of cars on the road will have results.
The drug wars stopped people doing drugs right?
Police in the U.S. is a shit show and other countries are following because they all reduce the screening procedures, psychological care and training time. But just defunding them, without doing anything else, will make it worse.
You propaply have to build up some completely new type of police force, break it up and fill important positions with new people and start again from there.
Otherwise this will continue to spiral downwards. And with increasingly bad reputation of police you will attract more an more bad people into the job.
That’s actually what one city did. They fired all their police, created new procedures for training and screening, amd hires all new police. During the months it took to do this they relied on country amd atate police, so there was very little poloce presence in town. The end result was people had more faith in police and no real change in crime, but fewer citations where issued
There are countries in this world where the police actually consists of a body of well-trained specialists. People who don’t shoot first and ask questions later. People who got trained on de-escalation procedures, psychology, foreign language basics, how to deal with people having issues, etc.
Why not just automate traffic violations and remove 83% of police?
Red light cameras, sure. It can be done fairly - not that it is everywhere.
Speed cameras just trap people new to an area. The people who live in an area learn to avoid them and thus they don’t stop habitual speeders who are a danger. Plus they can’t be everywhere.
The bias needs to be taken out of it. Police can’t seem to stop themselves from racial profiling. Its like a compulsion.
Gridlock cameras can be added to red light cameras, also reducing congestion policing costs.
Speed cameras trap people new to an area.
Or they could just, not speed? And speed cameras can be everywhere. They cost up to $50k to deploy and collect to 2k+ fines per year (based in my location, this obviously varies wildly), so they run net positive. Rotating locations can also get after the habits of locals, though that’s the 50k cost, I’d guess statics are cheaper.
If immediate reduction is most important than habit changing over time (i.e. a school zone or highway transition) speed linked red lights can achieve the effect. Such to say, if you drive over the limit, the light turns red. This forces you to stop and pisses off everyone behind you, providing social pressure. These are only in the pilot stage, so I don’t know the real deployment costs.
Speed traps are called speed traps because the limit suddenly drops like 20-30 mph in a very short distance. Saying “just don’t speed” completely ignores how speed traps work and why they exist .
I used to drive truck over the road, and I can attest to the fact that those red light cameras can also be made very deliberately unfair. The city of Hannibal, Missouri had these cameras at the intersection of Highway 61 and Red Devil, at the bottom of a steep hill. About 1/5 of a mile up the hill south of the intersection was a pole with a sensor on it set to about 12’6". I observed that any time any vehicle over that height passed that sensor, the light would trip to red. And it was set at a distance that a loaded semi would be all but guaranteed to run that light. Those of us who traveled that corridor with any frequency knew the sensor was there, and would try to want other drivers over the CB, but a lot of drivers had stopped routinely using the CB by then, so the light proved quite lucrative. At least, until it started causing wrecks from the trucks jackknifing in the intersection in the winter. That setup ran for three or four years before the city was dragged into court over it and forced to remove the red light cameras, though it was done in such a way as to question the enforceability of the tickets and without ever directly acknowledging that the cameras were set up to entrap commercial vehicles.
Some cities have been sued for doing that. You can’t face your accuser in court if your accuser is a computer.
what if your family member or friend was using your car? what if your car was stolen? also, some of those cameras will ticket for legal right on red.
they just catch plates and send a ticket in the mail to the registered owner. it’s not great. source - i live in a city with these, though state law now means the city can no longer enforce tickets. also, the idea of camera/computer generated rosters of law-breakers is unsettling.
Sort of, the idea is that you can face the citing officer in court. Granted, all the officer has to do is lie and the judge is likely to side with them over a rando citizen, but that’s the intent of the law.
