Why do you suppose that is? Here's the problem with people who assume poor people are criminals. You just look at headlines and never try to even consider any underlying factors - such as the fact that businesses are not present in inner city neighborhoods or southern rural communities. And, no, it's not because of crime. Crime happens when people can't get jobs. And that's just one of the many issues regarding crime in poor neighborhoods.
Then reorganization needs to occur, to use the money more wisely and to cut the bureaucracy as much as possible. Defunding much of the police and piecing it out to agencies that are far more capable would be best, letting the police do the basic and essential roles that deal with violent crimes, where an armed presence might be needed. You believe the police need bigger budgets, I think their budgets are far, far too large and the police system itself much too bloated. As it stands, like our healthcare system, we're paying too much and receiving inadequate care in return. You and I are likely not going to agree on this one.
I normally don't read Vox, much less pass on any articles. But, this one seemed relevant to this discussion. The only reason I read it is because a friend posted it on Linked In and she is much less antagonistic (to anyone) than I am. Before you comment, please read the article. It doesn't demonize officers, nor does it place them on pedestals (tangent: I always thought that word was pedestool. Learn something new every day). Anyway, if you're truly interested, it's an interesting article. Long before George Floyd, a law professor decided to join the police for to find out for herself what is what with policing. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...n-policing-law-enforcement-reform-rosa-brooks
I don't care why. I'm not setting up shop where it is likely to get robbed or burned down. Nobody owes society that sactifice.
Yes I did. Me showing up and offering jobs will NOT prevent me from being robbed. There is just no incentive to set up shop there. And employment is no guarantee some won't act like a criminal shitbag.
Crime doesn't happen in a vacuum. If there were businesses or other opportunities, the crime rate would be the same as it is in areas where there is opportunities. Crime isn't because people are poor. Crime exists where opportunity doesn't.
I'm certain there was a funny component there. But it doesn't like my ad blocker. Oh, too bad. Still not letting them put mal-ware on ... any computer, let alone my work computer.
You know they've actually done studies right? Where they gave poor people free money with no strings attached and found they mostly used to on necessities and improving their lives? https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/9736...trings-attached-stipends-pays-off-study-finds You say you're not a "true believer," but you sure do cling to your unfounded cynicism like it's an article of faith.
I'm not sure if I told you or not. But, I was speaking with someone recently and mentioned that what I really wanted to do, as a career, was to open a business in an inner city - at the time, it was specifically aimed at employing runaway teens to teach them not only job skills, but to teach them all the things their parents didn't. So, this isn't the 'I dare you' thing that is implied in the post.
I'm down with ending the flow of military hardware to police departments. (My local sheriff's office got what was essentially a tank from one of those post-9/11 programs. As far as I know, they've never done anything with it except for driving it in parades.) But our number of residents per police officer doesn't seem wildly off compared to other countries, and if anything I'd support paying police officers more if it means we can attract more good applicants, be pickier, and not have to take every mouthbreathing high school bully who wants to strap on a badge so he can lord it over people. (Making things actually pan out that way, of course, will require a lot of departments' administrations to reform. Not sure how we do that.)
Yeah, I mean if you're not at all interested in looking for and being open to solutions that help and advance our civilization and prefer stagnation to the point of moving things backwards that's a great space to be in I guess It seems that you yearn for the "simpler days" (which weren't simple at all) because you're at this spot in life that you're comfortable with without realizing that people caring about how to arrive at solutions to improve quality of life is what got you here in the first place
Idiot. Cheap, useless idiot. And everyone knows. They can smell it on you. Shame on you for being so obvious... OK, Joker impression over but you are indeed a dumbass. You don't dump free money straight onto poor people. Well, you can dump a bit, and every experiment says they do indeed generally use it to better themselves, rather than buying guns or rims like your "humans are scum" anecdote. But most of it, you put on rebuilding the infrastructure and support mechanisms of that neighbourhood. THAT helps. But it's a hand in your pocket, isn't it? Never mind that your trousers don't contain anything worth grabbing. Are you just afraid of intimacy, or at having your tiny genitals compared to those of Bezos, who we REALLY want to grip the shaft of, only he's lobbied the government to consider him a Ken doll?
Believe that if you like, but I earn my keep and pull my weight reliably. Vague terms like that make me suspicious.
Yes I'm generally talking about "detectives interviewing someone 'down at the station' as portrayed in movies and TV" but I also know there's a lot of refinement to be had on this idea.
Always will be unless you're only building the infrastructure of 20 years ago. For example a decade ago the Australian government announced a massive infrastructure plan to connect the entire country to high speed internet, the National Broadband Network, including replacing the aging copper backbone of the nation's communications infrastructure with fiber optics and were talking about the benefits of homes having fast upload as well as download speeds. They spruiked the opportunities for new businesses, working from home, telehealth, along with emphasizing that many of the ultimate benefits of high speed internet being as ubiquitous and reliable as a standard home phone connection couldn't yet be predicted. They started the rollout, and then a new government was elected. They hobbled the plans, saying they were unnecessary, too expensive, and that people didn't need those sorts of speeds (especially upload, since most people download a lot more than they upload). And to be fair, at the time they didn't, because the thing about infrastructure is that until it's there people by definition can't use it. They mocked the previous governments ideas of massive amounts of people working and being educated from home. They focused on the existing market, talking about how with their reduced scheme people would still be able to watch 1080p Netflix streams and the like, and that while not everyone in household might be able to do do simultaneously it wasn't the government's job to waste money making it easier for people to watch movies. Over the 2010s the limits of their hobbled NBN became clear as more people started butting up against the limits. Then 2020 happened, and suddenly all the pie in the sky ideas of people working and studying from home, using video calls to keep in touch and conducting telehealth appointments with health workers weren't a vague idea, they were a reality.