The above is very interesting. It feels like a variation of Biden's "we have the best economy in the world", (Americans are just too stupid to realize how good, they have it). Dems appear to be saying yet again, crime is not the issue, wrongful perception is the problem.
Much of crime does appear to be down, but ask any law student studying for the Bar Exam, how many different ways exist, to charge the exact same criminal fact pattern. In the blink of an eye, an attempted rape can become a simple assault. Attempting to break into a home, with residents inside, can be a serious attempted home invasion or a simple breaking and entering, depending on how it is charged. One is a felony, the other a misdemeanor. The options are endless. Many Blue city DAs no longer believe in incarceration anything but murder, so they always order the lesser offense charged.
Moreover, many former crimes have been, either technically or de facto, decriminalized. If thefts below $1000 are no longer a criminal violation, but a civil one, theft is going to drop like a rock. A city that stops charging drug felonies, to prevent deportations, appears to be a city with less drug offenses. Some jurisdictions have a mandate to always undercharge juvenile crime.
Finally, Dems seem to fail to grasp, the randomness of crime is often far more important to citizens, than actual numbers. Half the country recently watched a beautiful young woman, having fled a war zone, stabbed to death on NC public transport, like something out of a horror movie. She purposely does not call attention to herself, and yet is murdered from behind, with no interaction with her killer. His rap sheet is a mile long. Despite actual video, many news sites refuse to report the murder. If crime were really a rarity, wouldn't such a heinous offense be news, all new organizations would rush to report?
Whether or not crime is up or down in a general historical sense depends on your point of reference.
Crime currently isn’t as bad as it was back in the 80s, but it’s far worse than it was after the hugely successful broken windows policing campaigns of the 90s.
I live in a small metro area where I feel very safe. I might add that it has a large Hispanic population that is somewhat segregated in housing but has a high rate of employment and a low rate of crime.
My support for a combination of anti-poverty programs and “law and order” is based on my understanding that felonious crime is concentrated in certain low income neighborhoods where it perpetuates a pattern of unhappiness and failure. That is tragic for the decent people living there as well as for the nation overall.
My preferred solution is to acknowledge the limitations of the anti poverty programs of the past 60 years and focus more on support for children starting with two parent families, and a commitment to appropriate education through high school and beyond by their particular local communities. Democrats tend not to support such policies very explicitly.
How far do you think you would get if you tried teaching children that the way out of poverty is to finish school, get married, and then have children (in that order)? You'd be pilloried.
You’d be pilloried by “Progressives,” who dominate the Democratic Party and are the reason why I seldom vote for Democrats (though not for MAGA Republicans either).
As a postscript to my comments here -- for which I appreciate your endorsements -- I'll add my endorsement for a generally conservative American named Mike Rowe. He and I have college degrees, and by getting our own hands "dirty" have gained intelligent insights into so-called "dirty work" performed by people with less formal education.
We both recognize that those who perform critical but non-prestigious jobs honestly and competently often advance to higher levels of responsibility and pay -- including ownership of small businesses that sometimes grow into multi-million dollar enterprises. Think "the millionaire next door" who has become wealthy by honestly selling useful services to everyone and treating their employees fairly.
Please check out the website of the organization that Mike Rowe has founded to advance education in and beyond high school in practical skills that benefit both young people as individuals for whom college is a waste of money, and benefit the overall U.S. economy by gaining their skills:
I live in a small sanctuary city of 30K that has been flooded with migrants, many of them young men now wandering the streets during the day. Overall crime is down according to the city data keepers, but with violent crime up, coincidentally, with the influx of these migrants. I live in a "safer" part of the city, but how long will it before the tentacles of crime will reach my neighborhood, and maybe yours?
I'm opposed to large scale immigration by any groups because the U.S. already has too many people to support a high standard of living indefinitely. However, I acknowledge that most immigrants of all types are here for better pay and living conditions than in their home countries. When they find jobs, the bad news is that it depresses the pay of U.S. citizens, but the good news is that the immigrants work hard, abide by laws other than regarding immigration, and lower the costs to consumers of various services. It's complicated, and I think that the best solution is to provide a path to citizenship for "established" non-citizens, while either issuing temporary work permits to or deporting recent arrivals.
Channel surfing after any number of current and past serial crimes committed by those illegally in this country with criminal records might shed some real light on these disparate public perceptions about crime. As long as analysts are reporting on those perceptions in terms of Republican v. Democrat alone, ignoring the political leanings of the malpractice messengers, reality will remain distorted.
Add to that the real and lasting drop in crime if serial offenders were not so casually returned to the streets as they are especially in many Democratic jurisdictions, and if border-crashing illegals were caught, arrested, tried and imprisoned or deported.
Last night our county sheriff released a statement, photo, and video of a person, saying they were releasing a very violent person and the public should beware. Our county has 300,000 people and is bigger than rhode island. The sheriff also released video of the man beating and kicking unconscious people on the ground, he'd been charged with attempted murder.
There is some technicality in the law where people unable to face charges due to psychological issues have to be freed. Similar has happened in greater Denver. I hate to say it but the law is legislation passed by my party.
I assume our sheriff is taking a chance of being sued for something by releasing a photo and video like he did to the public. I also assume he knows that guy is going to hurt someone very badly very soon.
Update: There have been a few similar releases of very dangerous people all of whom have committed more violent assaults after release. Musk commented, our governor saw it, looked into the issue and all are being committed as the violent recidivists that they are to mental institutions or whatever. It was one of those feel good about the poor misguided criminal bills that had unintended consequences. There are some people that are simply crazy violent. No more will be released until they can change the law.
Noticing or complaining about crime and disorder (and they do go together, and the latter is a real problem too - tent cities, human waste on the sidewalk, property destruction) makes you racist. That’s the way it is in blue cities. We are all supposed to just endure everything because it makes you a good progressive. The amount of shit - both literal and figurative - that we are all just expected to take now is unreal. Like it’s just the way things naturally are, like weather.
When it comes to safety on public transit time of day makes a huge difference. A train/bus packed full of mostly normal people going to/from work is going to both be and feel far safer even if it has one or two very sketchy people on it than a mostly empty train or bus with one or two sketchy people on it. If you both make north of 200k and ride public transit daily, you are both most likely riding during regular commuter hours and have other options.
The graph on is there more crime than a year ago is a classic example of why when it comes to issue polling I tend to regard the D/R lines as noise and view the Independent response as the best approximation of the mainstream view point.
I rode the DC metro daily, and my knee jerk reaction would be to rate it mostly safe... However after starting to think of the uncomfortable or scary incidents I experienced while riding it I think I have to rate it lower. The worst one was with regards to a large, obviously mentally disabled man. I don't think you can do much about that without having an officer literally stationed on every car.
I hate to say it, but the problem is not that mentally unstable, criminally minded folks will "get off the bus or train n my neighborhood." In my metro area, the train is where the city houses its homeless population. They just ride and ride for free, create a smelly mess, harass the few paying customers who ride the trains, and stay off the streets in this way.
The question not asked is, if you were planning a trip to or around the US are there cities you might like to visit but avoid for safety concerns?
There is a big difference between local knowledge; when and/or which lines on which you ride comfortably vs strangers new to a public transportation system for whom avoidance might be the more comfortable choice.
The above is very interesting. It feels like a variation of Biden's "we have the best economy in the world", (Americans are just too stupid to realize how good, they have it). Dems appear to be saying yet again, crime is not the issue, wrongful perception is the problem.
Much of crime does appear to be down, but ask any law student studying for the Bar Exam, how many different ways exist, to charge the exact same criminal fact pattern. In the blink of an eye, an attempted rape can become a simple assault. Attempting to break into a home, with residents inside, can be a serious attempted home invasion or a simple breaking and entering, depending on how it is charged. One is a felony, the other a misdemeanor. The options are endless. Many Blue city DAs no longer believe in incarceration anything but murder, so they always order the lesser offense charged.
Moreover, many former crimes have been, either technically or de facto, decriminalized. If thefts below $1000 are no longer a criminal violation, but a civil one, theft is going to drop like a rock. A city that stops charging drug felonies, to prevent deportations, appears to be a city with less drug offenses. Some jurisdictions have a mandate to always undercharge juvenile crime.
Finally, Dems seem to fail to grasp, the randomness of crime is often far more important to citizens, than actual numbers. Half the country recently watched a beautiful young woman, having fled a war zone, stabbed to death on NC public transport, like something out of a horror movie. She purposely does not call attention to herself, and yet is murdered from behind, with no interaction with her killer. His rap sheet is a mile long. Despite actual video, many news sites refuse to report the murder. If crime were really a rarity, wouldn't such a heinous offense be news, all new organizations would rush to report?
Whether or not crime is up or down in a general historical sense depends on your point of reference.
Crime currently isn’t as bad as it was back in the 80s, but it’s far worse than it was after the hugely successful broken windows policing campaigns of the 90s.
Branding public safety as a MAGA issue is not a winning strategy for Democrats. This precisely what the left has done in the aftermath of Charlotte.
It’s basically just another example of: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-fox-news-fallacy
Teixeira is probably the most self-aware of Democratic thinkers.
I live in a small metro area where I feel very safe. I might add that it has a large Hispanic population that is somewhat segregated in housing but has a high rate of employment and a low rate of crime.
My support for a combination of anti-poverty programs and “law and order” is based on my understanding that felonious crime is concentrated in certain low income neighborhoods where it perpetuates a pattern of unhappiness and failure. That is tragic for the decent people living there as well as for the nation overall.
My preferred solution is to acknowledge the limitations of the anti poverty programs of the past 60 years and focus more on support for children starting with two parent families, and a commitment to appropriate education through high school and beyond by their particular local communities. Democrats tend not to support such policies very explicitly.
How far do you think you would get if you tried teaching children that the way out of poverty is to finish school, get married, and then have children (in that order)? You'd be pilloried.
You’d be pilloried by “Progressives,” who dominate the Democratic Party and are the reason why I seldom vote for Democrats (though not for MAGA Republicans either).
As a postscript to my comments here -- for which I appreciate your endorsements -- I'll add my endorsement for a generally conservative American named Mike Rowe. He and I have college degrees, and by getting our own hands "dirty" have gained intelligent insights into so-called "dirty work" performed by people with less formal education.
We both recognize that those who perform critical but non-prestigious jobs honestly and competently often advance to higher levels of responsibility and pay -- including ownership of small businesses that sometimes grow into multi-million dollar enterprises. Think "the millionaire next door" who has become wealthy by honestly selling useful services to everyone and treating their employees fairly.
Please check out the website of the organization that Mike Rowe has founded to advance education in and beyond high school in practical skills that benefit both young people as individuals for whom college is a waste of money, and benefit the overall U.S. economy by gaining their skills:
https://mikeroweworks.org/
I live in a small sanctuary city of 30K that has been flooded with migrants, many of them young men now wandering the streets during the day. Overall crime is down according to the city data keepers, but with violent crime up, coincidentally, with the influx of these migrants. I live in a "safer" part of the city, but how long will it before the tentacles of crime will reach my neighborhood, and maybe yours?
I'm opposed to large scale immigration by any groups because the U.S. already has too many people to support a high standard of living indefinitely. However, I acknowledge that most immigrants of all types are here for better pay and living conditions than in their home countries. When they find jobs, the bad news is that it depresses the pay of U.S. citizens, but the good news is that the immigrants work hard, abide by laws other than regarding immigration, and lower the costs to consumers of various services. It's complicated, and I think that the best solution is to provide a path to citizenship for "established" non-citizens, while either issuing temporary work permits to or deporting recent arrivals.
Channel surfing after any number of current and past serial crimes committed by those illegally in this country with criminal records might shed some real light on these disparate public perceptions about crime. As long as analysts are reporting on those perceptions in terms of Republican v. Democrat alone, ignoring the political leanings of the malpractice messengers, reality will remain distorted.
Add to that the real and lasting drop in crime if serial offenders were not so casually returned to the streets as they are especially in many Democratic jurisdictions, and if border-crashing illegals were caught, arrested, tried and imprisoned or deported.
Last night our county sheriff released a statement, photo, and video of a person, saying they were releasing a very violent person and the public should beware. Our county has 300,000 people and is bigger than rhode island. The sheriff also released video of the man beating and kicking unconscious people on the ground, he'd been charged with attempted murder.
There is some technicality in the law where people unable to face charges due to psychological issues have to be freed. Similar has happened in greater Denver. I hate to say it but the law is legislation passed by my party.
I assume our sheriff is taking a chance of being sued for something by releasing a photo and video like he did to the public. I also assume he knows that guy is going to hurt someone very badly very soon.
Update: There have been a few similar releases of very dangerous people all of whom have committed more violent assaults after release. Musk commented, our governor saw it, looked into the issue and all are being committed as the violent recidivists that they are to mental institutions or whatever. It was one of those feel good about the poor misguided criminal bills that had unintended consequences. There are some people that are simply crazy violent. No more will be released until they can change the law.
Noticing or complaining about crime and disorder (and they do go together, and the latter is a real problem too - tent cities, human waste on the sidewalk, property destruction) makes you racist. That’s the way it is in blue cities. We are all supposed to just endure everything because it makes you a good progressive. The amount of shit - both literal and figurative - that we are all just expected to take now is unreal. Like it’s just the way things naturally are, like weather.
When it comes to safety on public transit time of day makes a huge difference. A train/bus packed full of mostly normal people going to/from work is going to both be and feel far safer even if it has one or two very sketchy people on it than a mostly empty train or bus with one or two sketchy people on it. If you both make north of 200k and ride public transit daily, you are both most likely riding during regular commuter hours and have other options.
The graph on is there more crime than a year ago is a classic example of why when it comes to issue polling I tend to regard the D/R lines as noise and view the Independent response as the best approximation of the mainstream view point.
I rode the DC metro daily, and my knee jerk reaction would be to rate it mostly safe... However after starting to think of the uncomfortable or scary incidents I experienced while riding it I think I have to rate it lower. The worst one was with regards to a large, obviously mentally disabled man. I don't think you can do much about that without having an officer literally stationed on every car.
Why would a large, obviously mentally disabled man be allowed on public transport?
I hate to say it, but the problem is not that mentally unstable, criminally minded folks will "get off the bus or train n my neighborhood." In my metro area, the train is where the city houses its homeless population. They just ride and ride for free, create a smelly mess, harass the few paying customers who ride the trains, and stay off the streets in this way.
That sounds like our downtown library.
The question not asked is, if you were planning a trip to or around the US are there cities you might like to visit but avoid for safety concerns?
There is a big difference between local knowledge; when and/or which lines on which you ride comfortably vs strangers new to a public transportation system for whom avoidance might be the more comfortable choice.