The news the MSM ignores because it does not fit the narrative

[donkdowndonedied]

There are lots of problems. Often this "proactive" stuff just gets poor kids in the system when they very well might have avoided it all their life. Probation and all the fees. Or tickets that people really can't afford. I don't think anyone is well served by that shit.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm always interested in seeing the truth even if we don't like it.

Chicago is not that violent of a city BTW. Thats some myth from what I see.. always brought out by the right as some cesspool of liberalism when I don't think the murder rate even cracks the top 20 cities. It isn't a safe place, but it isn't specifically worse than other bad cities. Baltimore, yes.

This is from Wikipedia.

Chicago homicides/year

2010: 436[101]
2011: 435[101]
2012: 516[102]
2013: 441[33]
2014: 432[33] or 416[103]
2015: 468[103]
2016: 762[104]

2016's surge in murders and shootings, coupled with a decline in gun seizures, led former Police Superintendent John Escalante to express concerns in March 2016 that officers might be hesitant to engage in proactive policing due to fear of retribution. Officers anonymously reported to the Chicago Sun-Times that they have been afraid to make investigatory stops because the Justice Department and American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois have been scrutinizing police practices. Data of the supposed pullback was reflected with an 80 percent decrease in the number of street stops that officers made since the beginning of 2016. Dean Angelo has claimed that part of the problem is politicians and groups like the ACLU who don't know much about policing, and yet are "dictating what police officers do".[151][152][153]

-By all accounts murder seems to be an exponentially increasing problem in Chicago, and political scrutiny of the police department seems to be part of the problem. I am sure for cities above a certain population threshold Chicago is extremely high on the murder rate list. If you just do "murder rate" most of the cities are going to be small ones that have randomly had a lot of murders in a given year, so saying Chicago is relatively safe because it isn't in the top 20 for murder rate isn't really being honest. The fact that St. Louis and Baltimore are big cities that are also high in murder rate actually says a lot about how bad the crime situation really is in these cities.

No, there are many cities with higher murder rates than Chicago. For Chicago to be repeatedly brought forth as an example makes me question your data. These are not towns with 1k people in them that had someone die. 2017 hasn't even finished yet, but apparently everyone on the right knows something about the murder rate there. Not sure whats going on with that.

As to why the murder rate jumped up so high in Chicago, I can't say. It will be interesting to see if it happens again. If the numbers you gave are true then it seems likely.

It isn't so much that I don't think cops going hard on suspected criminals doesn't reduce crime. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise. That doesn't make sense. What I believe is that government itself can perform criminal acts on citizens. People get caught up in the criminal justice system and never get out. Lots deserve it, but many don't. This is especially true in these areas where this "proactive policing" is such a big deal. When you're poor, those small things can really hurt you because you can't pay an attorney to get your cases sealed or whatever. Perhaps you can't afford a fine. All these stories are never counted. Infact, anyone who actually interviews people in a news piece like this will be considered a "liberal" media outlet. For SIMPLY interviewing the poor blacks etc that get fucked by this stuff. You *NEVER* see the rightwing rags interview these people or tell their story. It just doesn't sell to the rightwing mindset which needs to constantly be coddled.

Basically, some people, especially Republicans believe that cops are like angels and should be given all the authority they wish. People like myself, who are distrustful of undue power vehemently disagree. Republicans really don't want to acknowledge any of this, but some do.

[FPS_Russia]

I was just strolling around the web, seeing which Jews were trying to lie us into which wars and I came across a shocking deception.

Famous director/ big time democrat Rob Reiner had a new movie come out on Sept 30 2017 called Shock and Awe.
plot:

The film is about journalists investigating the assertions by the Bush Administration concerning Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[2]

Wow he's really pissed off about the bush admin lying us into war, or so it seems.

At the same time that Reiner has a movie coming out exposing the Bush admin and the lies that led to the Iraq war. He teams up with Bush speechwriter and Neocon propaganda expert David Frum to lie us into a new cold war and potentially WW3 w Russia.
Frum is the one who wrote the axis of evil speech for Bush and helped lie us into the Iraq war.

So begins a video released today by The Committee to Investigate Russia, an organization founded by When Harry Met Sally director Rob Reiner and neoconservative senior editor of The Atlantic David Frum. The video, which stars Morgan Freeman and is rife with patriotic images of American flags, soldiers and bald eagles, continues as follows:

Imagine this movie script:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/910100283463798785

The evidence-free assertion that America has “been attacked” is plainly geared to elicit a fear response from the video’s intended audience and manufacture support for counter-attacks and/or dangerous new cold war escalations.

Trump's team actually colluded w Israel haha
What a bunch of snakes.

Trump's budget and a new cold war or war w iran (prob both) and Social security is eliminated completely imo. I think that's the goal.

[ErickAA]

I am sure policing can and should be improved. From what I can tell though, most of the cities that have come under scrutiny and had police reforms crime has increased substantially directly as a result of these reforms.

The problem from what I understand is that the tactics that are the most effective in stopping crime before it starts are the tactics that the BLM crowd are so opposed to, and that is proactive policing, which is pulling suspicious people over for minor shit and checking them out, so basically profiling. So there is every expectation that as policing becomes more and more politicized, police departments are going to get less and less effective. Certainly seems to be the case in Baltimore and Chicago right now.

How brave of you to volunteer other people to be constantly harassed by the police.

How brave and principled of you to be ok with twice as many people being murdered every year (and crime increasing exponentially all around) because the police can't do their job effectively anymore.

Maybe there is an effective way to police a large city with a large poor, urban population without proactive policing, aka profiling. I really don't know. What I do know is that when big cities have had high crime rates in the past, the way it was effectively handled was to get more boots on the ground and increase proactive policing. If there is another way that doesn't infringe on civil liberties as much, it does not appear anyone has figured out what it is yet.

[ErickAA]

This is from Wikipedia.

Chicago homicides/year

2010: 436[101]
2011: 435[101]
2012: 516[102]
2013: 441[33]
2014: 432[33] or 416[103]
2015: 468[103]
2016: 762[104]

2016's surge in murders and shootings, coupled with a decline in gun seizures, led former Police Superintendent John Escalante to express concerns in March 2016 that officers might be hesitant to engage in proactive policing due to fear of retribution. Officers anonymously reported to the Chicago Sun-Times that they have been afraid to make investigatory stops because the Justice Department and American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois have been scrutinizing police practices. Data of the supposed pullback was reflected with an 80 percent decrease in the number of street stops that officers made since the beginning of 2016. Dean Angelo has claimed that part of the problem is politicians and groups like the ACLU who don't know much about policing, and yet are "dictating what police officers do".[151][152][153]

-By all accounts murder seems to be an exponentially increasing problem in Chicago, and political scrutiny of the police department seems to be part of the problem. I am sure for cities above a certain population threshold Chicago is extremely high on the murder rate list. If you just do "murder rate" most of the cities are going to be small ones that have randomly had a lot of murders in a given year, so saying Chicago is relatively safe because it isn't in the top 20 for murder rate isn't really being honest. The fact that St. Louis and Baltimore are big cities that are also high in murder rate actually says a lot about how bad the crime situation really is in these cities.

No, there are many cities with higher murder rates than Chicago. For Chicago to be repeatedly brought forth as an example makes me question your data. These are not towns with 1k people in them that had someone die. 2017 hasn't even finished yet, but apparently everyone on the right knows something about the murder rate there. Not sure whats going on with that.

As to why the murder rate jumped up so high in Chicago, I can't say. It will be interesting to see if it happens again. If the numbers you gave are true then it seems likely.

It isn't so much that I don't think cops going hard on suspected criminals doesn't reduce crime. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise. That doesn't make sense. What I believe is that government itself can perform criminal acts on citizens. People get caught up in the criminal justice system and never get out. Lots deserve it, but many don't. This is especially true in these areas where this "proactive policing" is such a big deal. When you're poor, those small things can really hurt you because you can't pay an attorney to get your cases sealed or whatever. Perhaps you can't afford a fine. All these stories are never counted. Infact, anyone who actually interviews people in a news piece like this will be considered a "liberal" media outlet. For SIMPLY interviewing the poor blacks etc that get fucked by this stuff. You *NEVER* see the rightwing rags interview these people or tell their story. It just doesn't sell to the rightwing mindset which needs to constantly be coddled.

Basically, some people, especially Republicans believe that cops are like angels and should be given all the authority they wish. People like myself, who are distrustful of undue power vehemently disagree. Republicans really don't want to acknowledge any of this, but some do.

Are you disputing that after a decade in the 400s, Chicago had 700+ murders last year and is in this ballpark again this year too? Do you think Wikipedia is making up numbers to support some right wing agenda?

AFAIK the recent dramatic increase in crime in cities like Chicago, Baltimore and St. Louis is not really something that anyone is disputing. The question is whether increased scrutiny of police that has lead to less proactive policing is the main reason for this. That I don't know for certainty, but evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.

[donkdowndonedied]

No, there are many cities with higher murder rates than Chicago. For Chicago to be repeatedly brought forth as an example makes me question your data. These are not towns with 1k people in them that had someone die. 2017 hasn't even finished yet, but apparently everyone on the right knows something about the murder rate there. Not sure whats going on with that.

As to why the murder rate jumped up so high in Chicago, I can't say. It will be interesting to see if it happens again. If the numbers you gave are true then it seems likely.

It isn't so much that I don't think cops going hard on suspected criminals doesn't reduce crime. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise. That doesn't make sense. What I believe is that government itself can perform criminal acts on citizens. People get caught up in the criminal justice system and never get out. Lots deserve it, but many don't. This is especially true in these areas where this "proactive policing" is such a big deal. When you're poor, those small things can really hurt you because you can't pay an attorney to get your cases sealed or whatever. Perhaps you can't afford a fine. All these stories are never counted. Infact, anyone who actually interviews people in a news piece like this will be considered a "liberal" media outlet. For SIMPLY interviewing the poor blacks etc that get fucked by this stuff. You *NEVER* see the rightwing rags interview these people or tell their story. It just doesn't sell to the rightwing mindset which needs to constantly be coddled.

Basically, some people, especially Republicans believe that cops are like angels and should be given all the authority they wish. People like myself, who are distrustful of undue power vehemently disagree. Republicans really don't want to acknowledge any of this, but some do.

Are you disputing that after a decade in the 400s, Chicago had 700+ murders last year and is in this ballpark again this year too? Do you think Wikipedia is making up numbers to support some right wing agenda?

AFAIK the recent dramatic increase in crime in cities like Chicago, Baltimore and St. Louis is not really something that anyone is disputing. The question is whether increased scrutiny of police that has lead to less proactive policing is the main reason for this. That I don't know for certainty, but evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.

I misread. I thought 2017 was the year it jumped up, so there wasn't even a full years data. If 2 years go by with 700 then that seems like a reasonable conclusion. That is not a surprise. I wonder how many smart liberals thought otherwise? It is actually a surprise that the magnitude of murders increased that much.

I would just like to know that police were actively still going after criminals and the likes and not just in some pout mode where they purposely overlooked things. How does it work anyway? Previously they would search suspects and so there were less guns around? Cops are a weirdly entitled lot, so hard to know what's going on.

[donkdowndonedied]

Part of the problem with all this was the introduction by the right of all these victimless crimes. This has made the government become seemingly criminal in its own right. This has bred mistrust. Perhaps when citizens can have faith that when a cop is harassing someone it is because there is an actual victim somewhere and not just because some dickhead thought that a big government solution was the answer.

You asked for a solution that doesn't trample on civil rights well start to decriminalize drugs across the board and find a different approach to the problem. This is very hard to do because of the right-wing political machine and all the d****** pandering that goes on.

I do not think a kid should get all tied up in the legal system because they had weed on them while walking down the sidewalk minding their own business having a cop not like their fashion sensabilities or color.

[ErickAA]

I misread. I thought 2017 was the year it jumped up, so there wasn't even a full years data. If 2 years go by with 700 then that seems like a reasonable conclusion. That is not a surprise. I wonder how many smart liberals thought otherwise? It is actually a surprise that the magnitude of murders increased that much.

I would just like to know that police were actively still going after criminals and the likes and not just in some pout mode where they purposely overlooked things. How does it work anyway? Previously they would search suspects and so there were less guns around? Cops are a weirdly entitled lot, so hard to know what's going on.

My understanding is it is more political pressure from up top to halt proactive policing, and less the officers themselves pouting and refusing to do their job. I think everyone who understands how the justice system actually works is very aware what happens when you stop doing proactive policing, and knew exactly this would happen.

The issue is police departments at the top are controlled by politics, and current political realities. Right now the concern is abuse of individual rights by police, so police departments have policies to minimize such abuses, which results in more crime. In other periods of time, the concern was cleaning up the streets and dropping crime rates and police departments enacted policies of dubious legality, which were effective in doing so.

The way our current society and laws are constructed, it is not realistic to expect police to uphold individual liberties AND do a good job of policing. So it is a matter of deciding where to strike the balance at any given time, which is oftentimes dictated by the political climate of the day. Maybe there will be some revolution in law enforcement policies and strategy that will change this, but I am pessimistic. IMO More likely the police are going to keep getting scrutinized and limited and crime will keep going up, until at some point people decide they have had enough and they will give the police a longer rope to work with, and the pendulum will swing the other way again.

[RegGaymer]

Let me be the first to say this

You have no idea how the msm works

/

[ErickAA]

Part of the problem with all this was the introduction by the right of all these victimless crimes. This has made the government become seemingly criminal in its own right. This has bred mistrust. Perhaps when citizens can have faith that when a cop is harassing someone it is because there is an actual victim somewhere and not just because some dickhead thought that a big government solution was the answer.

You asked for a solution that doesn't trample on civil rights well start to decriminalize drugs across the board and find a different approach to the problem. This is very hard to do because of the right-wing political machine and all the d****** pandering that goes on.

I do not think a kid should get all tied up in the legal system because they had weed on them while walking down the sidewalk minding their own business having a cop not like their fashion sensabilities or color.

Maybe. I feel there is downstream consequences to actions that people don't understand or take into account. For example, Druff always talks about lowering the cost of health care and the left wing ideologues of the site talk about reducing our military spending. In a vacuum this sounds reasonable, but both of these industries are huge components of our economy and if they suddenly disappeared it might have a lot of ripple effects that effect our position, at the individual and societal level, in a very negative way. Hard to know.

[SrslySirius]

it is not realistic to expect police to uphold individual liberties AND do a good job of policing.

Sorry to hear that you find the constitution so distasteful, pal. Maybe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Sudan are more your speed. They have very "proactive" policing.

[ErickAA]

it is not realistic to expect police to uphold individual liberties AND do a good job of policing.

Sorry to hear that you find the constitution so distasteful, pal. Maybe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Sudan are more your speed. They have very "proactive" policing.

They are one extreme. Very aggressive policing and horrible human rights abuses, and low crime rates. Mexico and Brazil might be the other end, where police are horribly corrupt and just as likely to be the ones perpetuating the crimes than trying to stop them, and it is pretty much law of the jungle. I think we can agree both of these extremes are not ideal and we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.

The Constitution is actually a pretty fluid document that is interperted very differently in different places and times. There are a lot of things which are deemed to be unconstitutional today that weren't yesterday and vice versa. There is no clear consensus what is legal and isn't as far as police procedures, which is probably a good thing, because it gives policy makers flexibility to work within the political climate of the day. If the Constitution actually said, "No police officer should pull over and search someone for a bullshit crime because they have a suspicion they may be committing a much more serious crime," then police would really be fucked as far as trying to be effective to the detriment of us all.

[SrslySirius]

Sorry to hear that you find the constitution so distasteful, pal. Maybe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Sudan are more your speed. They have very "proactive" policing.

They are one extreme. Very aggressive policing and horrible human rights abuses, and low crime rates. Mexico and Brazil might be the other end, where police are horribly corrupt and just as likely to be the ones perpetuating the crimes than trying to stop them, and it is pretty much law of the jungle. I think we can agree both of these extremes are not ideal and we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.

The Constitution is actually a pretty fluid document that is interperted very differently in different places and times. There are a lot of things which are deemed to be unconstitutional today that weren't yesterday and vice versa. There is no clear consensus what is legal and isn't as far as police procedures, which is probably a good thing, because it gives policy makers flexibility to work within the political climate of the day. If the Constitution actually said, "No police officer should pull over and search someone for a bullshit crime because they have a suspicion they may be committing a much more serious crime," then police would really be fucked as far as trying to be effective to the detriment of us all.

lol the 4th amendment is pretty cut and dry about that. If you think founding American principles are lame, that's cool, no need to dance around it. A lot of people dislike what this country stands for, and tyranny does have its advantages.

[Kuntmissioner]

[ErickAA]

They are one extreme. Very aggressive policing and horrible human rights abuses, and low crime rates. Mexico and Brazil might be the other end, where police are horribly corrupt and just as likely to be the ones perpetuating the crimes than trying to stop them, and it is pretty much law of the jungle. I think we can agree both of these extremes are not ideal and we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.

The Constitution is actually a pretty fluid document that is interperted very differently in different places and times. There are a lot of things which are deemed to be unconstitutional today that weren't yesterday and vice versa. There is no clear consensus what is legal and isn't as far as police procedures, which is probably a good thing, because it gives policy makers flexibility to work within the political climate of the day. If the Constitution actually said, "No police officer should pull over and search someone for a bullshit crime because they have a suspicion they may be committing a much more serious crime," then police would really be fucked as far as trying to be effective to the detriment of us all.

lol the 4th amendment is pretty cut and dry about that. If you think founding American principles are lame, that's cool, no need to dance around it. A lot of people dislike what this country stands for, and tyranny does have its advantages.

Well, looks like we have all been interpreting the 4th amendment wrong all these centuries. Good thing you are here now to clear the air. I am guessing everyone citing the 2nd amendment as giving them the right to own and carry guns is also misinterpreting things, and you can clear that up too.

And what about that part of the Constitution that said a black slave was 3/5 of a man. I know future amendments removed this and freed the slaves, but if they hadn't I am sure you would be supporting this statute, being the staunch advocate of founding American principles that you are.

[SrslySirius]

You raise some compelling points. Maybe it's more like the Bible. We all get to pick and choose which parts we like to honor.

[ErickAA]

You raise some compelling points. Maybe it's more like the Bible. We all get to pick and choose which parts we like to honor.

I think that is how things generally work out (along with changing interpretations of what the document is even saying) with most historical legal documents.

[donkdowndonedied]

Verm is actually fairly smart (or however one wishes to phrase it). He didn't take my troll bait and so I took him seriously. He is the type of conservative I can deal with. I'm not sure about msm hiding black violence vs white, but I am at least open to the idea. Calling him a tard or whatever seems misplaced. Problem is for every guy like this we got 20 brainless Republicans too.

No one cares what I think but if you know me from nwp you know I don't give out compliments. I hope he continues his education campaign. LOL

[lol wow]

HOSER THE CATFISH JUST OUT HERE FIRING

[Tellafriend]

HOSER THE CATFISH JUST OUT HERE FIRING

You have been noticeably absent. You been on vacation tracking down Katie?

[Sanlmar]

lol wow only uses alcohol for flambé and to sterilize his knives.

his downtime is like the old seal team six Micon downtime. Not to be questioned