Cops ignoring crime to avoid the hassle; Arrests plummet; Violent crime soars.

[bucs90]

Kansas City stunned by surge in murder....

Tony's Kansas City: TKC MUST SEE!!! AMID 36% KANSAS CITY HOMICIDE SPIKE POLICE OFFER HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR MURDER STATS!!!


Bodecea....want me to instead find cities the rate is NOT increasing??? Would be a short thread.

 

[bucs90]

Bodecea learned a lesson here

 

[JQPublic1]

New Orleans, Milwaukee, St Louis....all had 20-50% spikes

Several big U.S. cities see homicide rates surge

Bodecea don't leave....you demanded proof....make sure you soak it all in what Democrat policies have done...

I don't think she has left the arena. See just had to get some fresh air . With all the BS you've been spewing that is understandable.
She probably saw what I see. Spikes in murder are part of a cyclic pattern that goes up and down over A decade or so.That phenomenon was occurring well before the Black Live Matter movement was born. Unfortunately for truth seekers, police have the benefit of reporting without any oversight. I'll play along and say the statistics you gave are accurate . But the murder rate spikes of certain cities may have occurred due to White on White or Latino on Latino murders and may have nothing to do with Blacks at all. Your statistics might have more relevancy if they can be connected to Blacks. Undoubtably some are but, in raw numbers, White on White murder is just as prevalent as Black on Black murder. Please don't go off on a tangent about proportionality. We are talking about RAW homicide numbers only.

So, in that context the Black homicide rate may not have spiked at all. It may well have dropped for all we know.

 

[Meathead]

But the murder rate spikes of certain cities may have occurred due to White on White or Latino on Latino murders and may have nothing to do with Blacks at all.

Milwaukee, St Louis New Orleans all had 20-50% spikes.

Nothing to do with blacks? Sure! And the Food Stamp Fairy really does exist!

 

[Meathead]

If they're not doing their jobs let them go. Save the taxpayers a little money.

Letting thugs kill each other save a lot more.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder how most of our USMB nutbags would respond if they were ever stopped and frisked?

 

[bucs90]

I wonder how most of our USMB nutbags would respond if they were ever stopped and frisked?

If they were loitering in a high crime shithole or associating with known criminals....they'd probably expect it.

Not anymore though. Cops said fuck it. Sipping coffee is less troublesome than actually getting violent thugs off the streets. Yall have fun with the fallout.

 

[turzovka]

So funny to watch liberals crying out laws to enforced!

you mean those same liberals who cried out against child labor, slavery, and industrial pollution?
Those same liberals "cried out about those things and were responsible for the promulgation of JUST laws to correct those societal ills.

You sure had to reach back a few generations to find something honorable by your liberals. And if you want to talk civil rights in the 60’s that was at least as much republican led as democrats.

So to answer your first question --- No, not those liberals. Those liberals went to church and would be aghast to find how anti-family, anti-life and immoral their nation has become under the name liberal. And how much everyone blamed everyone else for their conditions.

In a historical context I don't associate the term "liberal " with any political party. That helps to keep things in perspective. The same paradigm applies to conservatives.

The term "liberal" is often misused by pseudo-conseratives and pigeon-holed for every thing they hate or disagree with. Erroneously, such "conservatives believe ALL democrats are immoral liberals and that republicans are all moral candidates for sainthood. I find the latter rather hypocritical since the KKK, American Nazis and other RW extremists proclaim themselves to be "conservatives." They have NEVER been liberals. Yet, THAT prime example of conservative immortality doesn't seem to faze you!

>>In a historical context I don't associate the term "liberal " with any political party. That helps to keep things in perspective. The same paradigm applies to conservatives.<<

So what was the point of you telling us what liberals did 100 or 200 years ago? You obviously wanted to defend democrat liberals of today by bringing up those heroic acts of so long ago.


>>The term "liberal" is often misused by pseudo-conservatives and pigeon-holed for every thing they hate or disagree with. Erroneously, such "conservatives believe ALL democrats are immoral liberals and that republicans are all moral candidates for sainthood.<<

You like to specialize in B.S. and straw man arguments I see. Where do you live by the way, Mars? Political and social discussions and debates have used general terms to make one’s points for eons. That is because no one has time to read an essay to clarify. First off, I am not sure what a pseudo-conservative is vs. a conservative. Secondly, now you accuse us of saying it is a “liberal” to blame for “everything we hate.” Then you accuse of us of saying “ALL” democrats are immoral liberals. Yeah, you are looking real good right now.

Question: If it is a large majority of those who would call themselves democrats or liberals who have been championing the positions of legal abortion, late term abortions, gay marriage, legalizing drugs, handing out condoms to school kids, taking God out of the classrooms and public square, open borders, allowing M.E. so-called refugees into our nation, etc., etc., --- then is it Ok for us to say “liberals defend this” without being accused of meaning All liberals?, every single one of you liberals? Would that be Ok, or is that going to send you on another tangential phony argument which diverts one from the real problems at hand?

Just because you think you are clever does not necessarily mean we think you are clever.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Who knew so many murderers drove around with broken taillights.

 

[dannyboys]

Who knew so many murderers drove around with broken taillights.

You forgot to use the words "stupid negro......."

 

[bucs90]

Who knew so many murderers drove around with broken taillights.

That's right. See....here's a crime fighting 101 lesson for you libs.

Murder takes working up the guts to do it. A gang rival pissed you off....you might drive by his hood 7 or 8 days in a row trying to go through with it and the 9th time....BAM....you do it.

But...if a cop stops you on the 4th pass...and arrests you for unlawful possession of that gun....that 9th time never happens. Multiply for lots of stops. And lots of gang murders never happen. But..."harrassment" for petty crimes does.

See?? But now....those stops aren't happening. Violence soars.

It's so simple. You libs just can't accept it.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

If they're not doing their jobs let them go. Save the taxpayers a little money.

But, when they do, do their jobs, you want them out in jail.

I want them fired when they completely fail at doing their job and disgracing their profession. Just like would happen anywhere else.

You hold them to an impossible standard.

No. Just because you want to hold them to zero standard, doesn't mean they shouldn't be expected to fulfill their oaths and do their job.

I never said zero standards. When did I ever even suggest that?

Your standard, is force white people to obey the law; let black people get away with everything.

Why do you think black people are incapable of meeting the same standards as white people?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[bucs90]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

 

[MikeK]

New York of course....murder spike

Murders up 20% in 2015 in year-to-year comparison, NYPD says

So you're saying cops not stopping blacks is why the murder rate continues to rise (at approximately the same rate it has been rising for quite some time)?

Also, are these gang murders -- i.e., Blacks murdering other Black gang members?

Finally, how does cops stopping Blacks prevent murders? What exactly to you mean by, "stopping?" Car stops?

I should mention that if this rise in the murder rate is mainly attributed to inter-ghetto gang murders, this is not something the average law-abiding citizen cares about. As you probably are aware, the general attitude is, who cares? If they wish to be gangstas, let them kill each other.

That is pretty much how I feel about it. How about you?

 

[MikeK]

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

Either that, or stop preventing (disarming) and discouraging competent, law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their neighbors.

 

[MikeK]

Let me add to the above message:

If Jim Jones, a decent, law-abiding, productive Black man who lives in a ghetto area obtains an illegal gun and uses it to kill or maim a known scumbag gang banger who has threatened or invaded Mr. Jones' living space and harmed his family -- then don't arrest Jones! Turn your head. Ignore the evidence.

Be a good cop.

 

[JQPublic1]

So funny to watch liberals crying out laws to enforced!

you mean those same liberals who cried out against child labor, slavery, and industrial pollution?
Those same liberals "cried out about those things and were responsible for the promulgation of JUST laws to correct those societal ills.

You sure had to reach back a few generations to find something honorable by your liberals. And if you want to talk civil rights in the 60’s that was at least as much republican led as democrats.

So to answer your first question --- No, not those liberals. Those liberals went to church and would be aghast to find how anti-family, anti-life and immoral their nation has become under the name liberal. And how much everyone blamed everyone else for their conditions.

In a historical context I don't associate the term "liberal " with any political party. That helps to keep things in perspective. The same paradigm applies to conservatives.

The term "liberal" is often misused by pseudo-conseratives and pigeon-holed for every thing they hate or disagree with. Erroneously, such "conservatives believe ALL democrats are immoral liberals and that republicans are all moral candidates for sainthood. I find the latter rather hypocritical since the KKK, American Nazis and other RW extremists proclaim themselves to be "conservatives." They have NEVER been liberals. Yet, THAT prime example of conservative immortality doesn't seem to faze you!

>>In a historical context I don't associate the term "liberal " with any political party. That helps to keep things in perspective. The same paradigm applies to conservatives.<<

So what was the point of you telling us what liberals did 100 or 200 years ago? You obviously wanted to defend democrat liberals of today by bringing up those heroic acts of so long ago.


>>The term "liberal" is often misused by pseudo-conservatives and pigeon-holed for every thing they hate or disagree with. Erroneously, such "conservatives believe ALL democrats are immoral liberals and that republicans are all moral candidates for sainthood.<<

You like to specialize in B.S. and straw man arguments I see. Where do you live by the way, Mars? Political and social discussions and debates have used general terms to make one’s points for eons. That is because no one has time to read an essay to clarify. First off, I am not sure what a pseudo-conservative is vs. a conservative. Secondly, now you accuse us of saying it is a “liberal” to blame for “everything we hate.” Then you accuse of us of saying “ALL” democrats are immoral liberals. Yeah, you are looking real good right now.

Question: If it is a large majority of those who would call themselves democrats or liberals who have been championing the positions of legal abortion, late term abortions, gay marriage, legalizing drugs, handing out condoms to school kids, taking God out of the classrooms and public square, open borders, allowing M.E. so-called refugees into our nation, etc., etc., --- then is it Ok for us to say “liberals defend this” without being accused of meaning All liberals?, every single one of you liberals? Would that be Ok, or is that going to send you on another tangential phony argument which diverts one from the real problems at hand?

Just because you think you are clever does not necessarily mean we think you are clever.

I was initially responding to Henrybough's comment : "

"So funny to watch liberals crying out laws to enforced" ( He left out the word "be", I think.)

I simply reminded him that liberals "crying out laws to be enforced" has historical precedence. with positive results. I thought the matter was settled until YOU jumped in. Out of nowhere you restructured the term liberal by differentiating between today's liberals and those who were instrumental in abolishing slavery and who legally addressed many of the subsequent societal ills brought on by industrial exploitation and racial inequality. Thanks for acknowledging those heroic acts.

You've heaped a lot of negatives on Liberalism. Without saying so directly, you are insinuating some neoliberalism has emerged. Your "question" is reflective of views that decry freedom and reeks of Draconian principles that would thrust us back in to the dark ages of intolerance towards a precipitous loss of individual freedom.


A fiscal conservative might be pro-choice. Does that make him or her a liberal? Blacks vote overwhelmingly for democratic politicians but are not generally pro gay marriage; Most adult Blacks go to church regularly and go to work every day just like any so-called "conservative." Yet, the general Black population is labeled , as being liberal.

Conversely, cops are generally portrayed as the conservative defenders of freedom but many are affiliated with the FOP ( Fraternal Order of Police) which is a union. Do those union members get to keep their conservative identities.?


As you can see, when laymen use political definitions to define someone, it is usually just a knee jerk categorization with only some nebulous association with reality.

If everyone was as hard core "conservative" as you THINK you are or as "liberal" as you make "others" to be, political power would remain in the hands of one party indefinitely.

 

[HenryBHough]

Indeed I did mistakenly leave out "be". Thank you for helping the reading impaired with that.

And yes, it is funny to see liberals demanding laws be enforced when their own Liberal-in-Chief Wannabe is long since accused of near treason in the court of public opinion but there is no arrest. At least not yet. Does rank really have that much privilege....even aspiring rank?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Indeed I did mistakenly leave out "be". Thank you for helping the reading impaired with that.

And yes, it is funny to see liberals demanding laws be enforced when their own Liberal-in-Chief Wannabe is long since accused of near treason in the court of public opinion but there is no arrest. At least not yet. Does rank really have that much privilege....even aspiring rank?

Court of public opinion? LOL What public is that, the closed bubble of conservative Logan's Run where only Faux News and con-radio are the sources of misinformation?
What crimes have been committed? What arrests made? What arrests could be made except in your addled brains?

The rest of us watch you people stuck in this bubble and laugh at you and feel sorry for you but you keep your crazy confined to your bubble. But now you want to force bubble-land on everyone else. It isn't going to happen junior.

President Obama has broken no laws, nor has anyone in his administration.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, had 138 of his administration either indicted or convicted of crimes.

138 - 0

The history is already written. The biggest hero to conservatives was the worst criminal to hold high office in the US.

The current president should win the Nobel Peace prize in comparison. Oh, he already did!