A naked shooter?
I'm glad the guy didn't act like a dick, he must have some huge balls to tackle the guy like he did and jerk his weapon off
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
A naked shooter?
I'm glad the guy didn't act like a dick, he must have some huge balls to tackle the guy like he did and jerk his weapon off
How about having enough police to properly investigate the stupidly high rates of low level crime then? Stuff which is a nice springboard for wannabe gangsters into more serious crimes.
How many people have had things like their bike stolen and had more correspondence with people wanting to know how the police did rather than the police themselves? I know I have!
As an aside, The link between poverty and crime is an interesting one.
As a result of the disparities in population, there are more "Poor" White Americans than there are Black Americans altogether. and yet High levels of violent crime seemingly associated with that poverty is an almost overwhelmingly Black thing.
Is it really because they are Black? or is there another factor at play?
Seems to me that the big difference between poor White people and poor Black people is that poor Black people tend to be concentrated in city centers whereas poor White people tend to be rural.
Now the rural poor have their own problems (DIY Meth and opiates for a start)
Nevertheless, It is probably much easier to be poor in the country and maintain a reasonable standard of living than in a city. In cities you need money because everything has to be paid for, and even basic slum accommodation is still likley to be expensive let alone everything else. In the country the base cost of living is likely to be much lower and there is opportunity for non-cash ways of supporting yourself and your family's such as hunting (Subsistence hunting is a big thing in rural America)
As a result there is far more pressure on poor Black people to engage in criminal activity that will generate cash, also because the population density is high in city centers there will be a lot of competition between different individuals hence forming into gangs and all the collective violence that is associated with this.
Certainly, were I American, I would far rather be poor in the country than the city..
As a result of the disparities in population, there are more "Poor" White Americans than there are Black Americans altogether. and yet High levels of violent crime seemingly associated with that poverty is an almost overwhelmingly Black thing.
Is it really because they are Black? or is there another factor at play?
Seems to me that the big difference between poor White people and poor Black people is that poor Black people tend to be concentrated in city centers whereas poor White people tend to be rural.
Now the rural poor have their own problems (DIY Meth and opiates for a start)
Nevertheless, It is probably much easier to be poor in the country and maintain a reasonable standard of living than in a city. In cities you need money because everything has to be paid for, and even basic slum accommodation is still likley to be expensive let alone everything else. In the country the base cost of living is likely to be much lower and there is opportunity for non-cash ways of supporting yourself and your family's such as hunting (Subsistence hunting is a big thing in rural America)
As a result there is far more pressure on poor Black people to engage in criminal activity that will generate cash, also because the population density is high in city centers there will be a lot of competition between different individuals hence forming into gangs and all the collective violence that is associated with this.
Certainly, were I American, I would far rather be poor in the country than the city..
Soldato
Soldato
I can't believe that in Tennessee of all places there wasn't someone in there with a gun. Clearly it's time to arm Waffle House servers...
Someone my wife knows left that Waffle House 30mins before the shooting.
Someone my wife knows left that Waffle House 30mins before the shooting.
Man of Honour
That "extremely dangerous assumption" has a great deal of evidence supporting it. I suggest, for example, that you look at crime in London in the early 19th century and how it was affected by the creation of an effective police force.
Nobody is saying that "the mere thought of there being a few extra police officers nearby will magically stop criminals committing crime". That's a strawman you've made.
The relevant factor is the perceived chance of getting caught. A perceived increase in the chance of getting caught results in a decrease in the amount of crime. There will still be crime, but less of it. There are people who don't care if they get caught and there are people who think they can't be caught or that they can't be convicted of anything because they're untouchable, but there are also people who apply some degree of risk/benefit analysis to crime. A more effective police force makes it harder to get away with crime, so it decreases the amount of crime.
For example...would you lock your car and take the key with you or would you leave your car with the doors open and the key in plain view on the driver's seat? The former won't make it impossible to steal your car or to steal stuff from your car, but it will make it more difficult to get away with it so it will decrease the chance of it happening. Not all criminals are deranged.
I didn't say anyone "said" it. I said there are people out there who seem to "think" that. And yes there are people out there who do think like that. I've come across people who think that a nearby police officer can stop explosions before they happen too, it's rather concerning actually and certainly no strawman thank you very much.
You say the relevant factor is perceived chance of getting caught.
You then say there are some people who don't care if they get caught. So that's a massive chunk which just vanishes from this "factor". People who don't care if they get caught will not be affected by perceived chance of getting caught will they?
You then say some of them "think that they cant be convicted of anything because they're untouchable"; again how will perceived chance of getting caught affect anyone who thinks they cant even be convicted? I don't see a connection there. Does the availability of 6 officers increase the chances of a conviction compared to say 4 or 5 officers?
If there is a guy who's been nicked and thinks he cant be charged and is untouchable with 5 officers on duty, nothing will magically change if there suddenly are 10 more officers in the vicinity. Right? I mean do officers sit around the table and say "Damn we cant convict that guy because there are only 6 of us, we need 2 more officers to put him away so we have to let him go guys"? I really don't know but it seems ridiculous.
Also for your "perceived" thing to work there would literally need to be DOUBLE or even TRIPLE the number of police officers for there to be a notable affect on people's perception.
And once that perception is achieved it's become a police state. Just a handfull of extra officers, or anything less than a 100% increase will not increase any perceptions. Police state is a prerequisite before mere perceptions of strong police force starts to actually stop crime from even happening.
OK I honestly have no idea what this is an example of. Yes I've seen bait car on TV but the world of criminology is far more complex.
Heck if you were right, what you're saying wouldn't even be possible, because everybody knows that a car sitting with the keys inside is a bait car, right??
Man of Honour
The fact that you've met a few deluded people and you assume that some people are thinking things that support your position doesn't stop it being a strawman. You were countering the argument that "the mere thought of there being a few extra police officers nearby will magically stop criminals committing crime". Nobody who isn't genuinely insane would think that, so you are fighting a strawman.
You're saying that a "massive chunk", i.e. a large proportion, of criminals don't care if they get caught. I'm not saying that.
Which is why I said that increasing the chance of being caught won't stop crime entirely. It's not a binary thing - maximum crime or no crime at all.
Same as above.
It is ridiculous...so why are you saying it? Your strawmen aren't even superficially plausible. They wouldn't even fool a particularly stupid crow.
Police officers can sometimes prevent crime by being visibly present, i.e. a deterrent.
Investigating a crime is often time consuming. The fewer police exist, the more crimes will have to go uninvestigated due to lack of people to investigate them. It's a form of triage - it's necessary to sort crimes in terms of seriousness, chance of a conviction and person-hours required to investigate them and ignore crimes that come further down in that list. Which is why a lot of theft now isn't investigated at all.
Here we go again with the "police state" thing. We do not have a police state, we're not headed towards being a police state and the police themselves certainly have no intention of being part of a police state. Stop banging the same tired, uninformed drum.
A police state is not a prerequisite to reducing crime at all, that's patently absurd, as is suggesting that the police can have no influence on the number of crimes occurring. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you know nothing about policing at all and yet you continue to insert yourself into these discussions as if you do. Give up asim, nobody is buying it.
I mean the tools are there at the higher levels, though i highly suspect we wouldn't adopt the Chinese social indexing that they've mandated, what happens if that's part of a Brexit deal with them?
Why aren't we heading for a police state if all the desires are there for one to exist? Do you expect the world to be hunky dory hippie loving once all the low level pleb jobs go to less annoying machines? Sometimes you just need to embrace the dystopian hell we're walking into, because there is no other option short of annihilation or utopia.
We have PMC's walking about after all the conflicts in the ME and elsewhere, who will be lobbying like a mofo to be standard instruments of war, absolute zero liability and all the benefits of "peacekeeping" once the reality hits that the colossal migrations that are about to occur can't be stemmed with love and understanding. Drone wars are just on the horizon as well, hopefully autonomous rules are in place, but it wont matter, black ops don't care for rules. We will have an incident where say Taranis or some descendant drone attacks seemingly random targets. We are giving ourselves easier abilities to lose control of our inventions because governments are filled with absolute tools, who only care about how much wealth/power they can accrue before everything breaks.
You can also see some evidence for this dystopia by watching the Senate committee hearing of Zuckerburg, they give him the power, not themselves, which is the reality of it.
Last edited:
Walking? people seem to be headlong pushing towards it.
All you ever do is say no. That's fine but you've never really posted anything resembling a reasonable argument.
Maybe try to post some actual ideas or trains of thought which you think society is doing to keep us well clear of an eventual police state. While you do that (or attempt to) I will continue to post ideas and trains of thought which I believe is sending people toward eventual police state with zero liberties and a completely ruined society.
Right. I was asking very basic questions in my post and you are completely unable to answer any of them, and instead of trying to explain anything you just go banging on about how much people know about policing lol. Unless you can prove that 6 officers have a higher chance of securing a conviction than if there were 3 officers. Or are you just going to keep on dodging the questions instead of even attempting to explain the mechanics or logistics of your complete assumption that more police somehow magically stops crimes from even happening.
There are just so many other factors which have effects on crime rate and attraction to crime. More police numbers causing a reducing of crime is just so down the bottom of the list it's just silly. You're arguing for such an insignificant thing. The fact is the advertisements for advertisements that police are currently bombarded with crimes as well as billboards for acid attacks are enticing more people to commit crimes than a few extra police officers will magically be able to avert due to their sheer presence.
You can keep banging on about how little you think I know about low level things like "policing" matters or whatever, but from my perspective you just have absolutely no clue about criminology or sociology, things I've been studying for over 10 years.
I didn't even say that a police state is a prerequisite to reducing crime. lol. So you don't even know what i'm saying and are trying to deny something I haven't even said. I'm pretty sure you did the same thing last time.
What I'm actually trying to say is that a police state is prerequisite IF SIGNIFICANT crime reduction is caused by sheer police presence. If we ever get to that point it will be a police state.
Very rarely. Most times it's not actually "deterred" it's just "deferred". It's a VERY important distinction to be made. Walking past a police man doesn't magically cure criminality. For example, you're not going to magically decide not to go buy some drugs just because you walk past a police officer on the way to your dealer, and same for the dealer, he's not going to close up shop just because police is out there.
So lets just say we have a car thief and he wants someone's car, he goes to steal it, but there's a police man walking past. Do you realise how utterly silly it is to assume that it's the end of story and everyone lives happily ever after.
No. He just goes back 5 minutes later and steals it when the police man is gone.
That is why I am saying that you will need to increase the police force by 100% and have pretty much martial law conditions before sheer presence and numbers stops significant amounts of crimes happening.
Lets take for example drug dealing. Everybody knows that drug dealers are disposable. You take down one and another kid takes over. So if you get more police to take out drug dealers you just automatically keep getting more people to take their place and it's just a vicious cycle of filling prisons.
No amount of police hours will be able to solve a crime which has no leads.
You're just assuming that any of these scenarios you're thinking of are even potentially solvable crimes.
Careful there when you say something like that people may actually believe you have a PhD level education in those subjects and take your opinion as fact.
Instead of realising you have noformal education in them at all.
I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen.
A decade of study and this is the best you can come up with? I had a better grasp of these concepts after my first year at uni and significantly less arrogance about it too. I have a copy of the Oxford Handbook of Criminology I'm not using if you need to expand your knowledge beyond the basics.
When you actually get out there into the real world you may start to see that the theories don't always fit so nicely into the reality of crime and policing. Speak to some people who are actually getting the job done day-to-day, listen to their stories and experiences, it's a great way to put things into a bit of actual context rather than regurgitating theory or opinion.
The main problem with sorts of arguments is that you're seeing the police force from one specific angle - that is as a reactive force, where they go from job to job arresting people, at which point it is silly to suggest that more police would drive down crime because those crimes would still be taking place - you'd just be arresting more people, but this conclusion is only apparent if you look at the problem from a such a limited dimension.
The reason we need more police to drive down crime, is that under the current strain of the service - the police have no spare bandwidth to deal with anything other than arresting people. Ideally - the police force should be a core pillar of the community, that involves providing community services, engaging with younger generations (running events, youth/school activities, etc, etc) and actually engaging with the community - not just as law enforcement, but as a service that does lots of different things that benefit society as a whole.
In a society where all community services including policing are very poorly resourced, generations of younger people are more likely to be sucked into things like crime and gangs, because there's no hierarchy of support services to take care of these problems before they form - only a blue light that turns up to deal with it 18 years later when it's turned into a full blown problem.
You don't need a police state, martial law or any such nonsense to achieve this, you just need services to be correctly resourced and managed by competent high quality people so that they can be an effective pillar of the community, rather than trying to run services as a business that's focussed on nothing other than cost savings.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...rvivors-jaws-drop_us_5ae4f225e4b04aa23f239924
You can't even make this **** up.
Awaiting the uproar from the NRA against the Trump administration for this...
You can't even make this **** up.
Awaiting the uproar from the NRA against the Trump administration for this...