Thuggery is not a viable policing strategy forums forums Politics and other things Thuggery is not a viable policing strategy

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #4309

    You can make the argument that the policies work, as multiple studies have cited “hot spot” policing as a cause of urban crime-rate declines (other studies disagree, but let’s stipulate).

    But the psychic impact of these policies on the massive pool of everyone else in the target neighborhoods is a rising sense of being seriously pissed off. They’re tired of being manhandled and searched once a week or more for riding bikes the wrong way down the sidewalk (about 25,000 summonses a year here in New York), smoking in the wrong spot, selling loosies, or just “obstructing pedestrian traffic,” a.k.a. walking while black.


    There were more cops surrounding Eric Garner on a Staten Island street this past July 17th then there were surrounding all of AIG during the period when the company was making the toxic bets that nearly destroyed the world economy years ago. Back then AIG’s regulator, the OTS, had just one insurance expert on staff, policing a company with over 180,000 employees.

    This is the crooked math that’s going to crash American law enforcement if policies aren’t changed.

    I like this approach to thinking about the problem. The idea that our policing is harming us more than serving us is one growing in a lot of minds.

    And the author does make a compelling case in that we absolutely will all pay hard if we don’t fix this.


    The problem is : To get take ‘thuggery’ out of the hearts, minds and souls of the ” perps ” whatever their race, creed or national origin. And do this in concert with changing the policing procedure .


    The problem all to often is identifying which one is the “perp”.


    When a guy robs a store and then tries to kill a cop, I know which one is the “perp.”


    But if one is busted just for being outside at 1:00 AM while black, who’s the “perp”?


    1. Michael Brown did not “rob” the store. This makes it sound as if he went in with a gun an held it up. This was not the case. He stole cigars, which is called shoplifting.

    2. Michael Brown did not try to kill the cop. This is the story from the cop who can say whatever he wants because Michael Brown isn’t here to tell his side because he’s dead.

    3. Cops are employed to PROTECT AND SERVE. Cops harrassing unarmed citizens is not protecting and serving the public. It leads to escalated incidents where things happen that didn’t need to happen.


    And this means protecting people while serving as their law enforcement. All people, including the perp.

    The guy selling singles absolutely did not have to die in order for the service of law enforcement to be performed, meaning the police failed in the protect portion of their duties.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.