this_shit t1_je5592w wrote
The man literally called for the National Guard to be deployed to fight gun violence. He's a goober who's being cynically pushed on Philly by right wing billionaires. I hate that this is literally our politics now.
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je56ouf wrote
I know nothing about this dude, but gun violence is literally the worst it has even been in the city. Asking for more help during the deadliest time in our city's history makes sense, doesn't it?
this_shit t1_je5ouwz wrote
How will marginally trained army reservists combat gun violence?
No disrespect to reservists, but they exist in case the United States is invaded, they have zero law enforcement training. Are they going to call in mortar support any time there's a shooting? Because that's what they're trained for.
[deleted] t1_je5s1x9 wrote
[removed]
this_shit t1_je5tkkz wrote
You're talking about trained police, not army reservists. The only similarity is that they both wear uniforms and carry guns. If that's all you think it takes to deter crimes, why not just hand out M4s and Flyers jerseys on the corner and deputize randos?
NonIdentifiableUser t1_je5btb2 wrote
If gangs start targeting randos or something, sure. Otherwise I’m not sure what having a military presence in a major US city will do other than make things worse. They’re not gonna actually have an police powers so they’ll be glorified security guards with high powered rifles. Made sense when there was rampant property crime during the riots, not so much now.
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5d6di wrote
Yes, I'm sure no one will think twice about pulling a drive by or shooting when they see armed military guards near by.
Do you think there is anything that deters criminals at all then? Are all the studies that show having active police presence lowers crime in an area just wrong? Will criminals happily pop shots off at dudes in army fatigues and AR-15s?
If that's the case, we are fucked period and nothing can be done to help the city's crime problem.
I just fine it crazy that the city is the DEADLIEST EVER and people are content not trying new things to deal with it. Must be nice being so separated from this violent crime you don't think we need to try anything new to help citizens.
lucascorso21 t1_je5qunl wrote
I used to work at Ft McNair in DC and they had a shuttle that went to a metro station. We were told during orientation to take the shuttle and not walk to the metro because uniformed soldiers were being robbed at gunpoint.
There is no evidence that a national guard deployment would do anything besides put heavily armed young adults in a situation which they are not trained for.
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5sxpa wrote
Lol there's decades of studies otherwise. I suppose all social studies that show a strong link of police presence and less crime is just fake news.
People really are wild to think more police presence doesn't deter crime. Idk what world you inhibit where you don't understand that connection.
Just think of it like this: If the PPD literally said there was an area in the city where no cops would be and no patrol would go, do you think that would make that area safer or more dangerous?
Also, I said it's worth to TRY. Right now 500 dead is what we are on trend for. I suppose we do nothing in the short term because you don't think criminals get deterred from crimes by police, despite decades of research otherwise.
lucascorso21 t1_je5teru wrote
I'm sorry - do you think national guard = police?
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5v1eu wrote
I think guys with guns in army fatigues will stop the pieces of shit from doing crimes in their presence to a good degree. At least worth the try as more citizens have been murdered in the last three years in Philly than a 3 yesr perood EVER BEFORE.
Idk maybe criminals look forward to getting shot up by army men, but I'm going to assume they will react similarly to when police are there, as they face the same outcomes of a cop being there: a bullet or an arrest.
No where did I say this will definitely work, but the question is why shit on something new to try when we literally have never had homicides this high?
The only person that can moral grandstand on new ideas with a retort of: let's try something that takes years, is someone who doesn't feel crime.
I care about outcomes, and everything someone has responded with is a solution that takes years. So in the meantime, we should just tell citizens: 500 of yall have to die yearly but please hold on we are working on it! Naa I refuse to think that's appropriate
lucascorso21 t1_je5ysxj wrote
Got it, so you're just throwing ideas out there without understanding what the guard is actually capable of doing (which is not community policing), how that would work legally and operationally, and if that would make things better or worse.
I'm all about solving this plague of violence. But if you don't understand what you are actually proposing, maybe you shouldn't say it?
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je60lut wrote
What I am advocating is trying something immediate to save lives. Maybe it works and then holy shit we have more living philadelphians, or maybe it fails and we are in the same exact boat.
If you want to say this idea can fail, I agree. What we are doing now is failing.
You're looking at a huge hole in the ship and I'm saying let's try to patch it with this, and you're response is: what if the ship continues to sink. That is literally what we are dealing with now.
We can do more than one thing at a time. While we work on long term reforms, we can do things in the immediate to try and give citizens of this great city a respite.
I just will never agree with thinking that letting 500+ of my fellow citizens die is more acceptable than trying something during THE DEADLIEST TIME EVER IN CITY HISTORY.
NonIdentifiableUser t1_je5ehyb wrote
So what happens when the national guard inevitably leaves? Or should we just have a military presence in our city in perpetuity? We have a police force for a reason, fix that before we start having the fucking army standing on our corners like we live in some failed state. (Though - I will admit I do sometimes feel like we are headed there, nationwide, with the pure dysfunction and lack of accountability in government.)
Most of the shootings are targeted, so unless they’re gonna pull detective duty and/or stay indefinitely, I don’t know what a temporary deterrence is going to do to actually solve the problem instead of just kicking the can down the road.
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5frjf wrote
Yes, what is the purpose of temporary deterrence? I mean saving only a few poor peoples lives really worth the effort anyway?
This is the definition of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
I agree, we need to fix policing. But why the heck does that forsake doing anything else until we fix police? I mean do you expect someone to wave a wand to fix police, or more realistically , understand huge change like that will take years. Saying 500+ need to die a year so you can moral grandstand on whats the BEST way to saves lives and lower crime smacks of entitlement rather than someone actually trying to help the citizens of the nation's poorest big city.
Again, anyone who is actually close to crime, lost loved ones, or lives in fear, would love to hear steps being taken, even if it only saves 25 ppl. But those that live in nice neighborhoods are fine watching the city burn so they can feel morally righteous about the policies they espouse.
I care about the citizens, not some ideological bullshit to feel warm inside. If dudes in Army fatigues can save people from dying, it's worth a try as we work through fixing other institutions in the city. It's not one or the other, it can EASILY be both.
NonIdentifiableUser t1_je5hjg6 wrote
I dunno man, I can appreciate where you’re coming from but I just don’t think it’s as easy as you’re making it sound to plant the national guard here as a crime deterrent. Who pays for it? The city, the state, the feds? If we’re gonna do it in Philly, why not other cities with worse homicide rates?
I’m not looking for a perfect solution, I just think the threshold for mobilizing the national guard is (rightfully) pretty high, and if violence that has been going on for half a century was considered below that threshold, we’d have seen it already. We already know things that will work (like, hey, maybe some gun laws so a teenager doesn’t have easy enough access that they can blast someone they get in a fight with), but we’ve decided in this country that we’re different and what has worked literally everywhere else just won’t work here (but no one can really explain why it won’t work).
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5jz5w wrote
Again, you literally are saying you think there are better ways so why even try using the national guard. This is the perfect being the enemy of the good. I dont claim it definitely will work, but what can it hurt? Murders are at all time highs over the last three years.
As far as I am aware, the national guard is fully funded by the DOD.
Also, why are you so content on doing nothing in the short term to alleviate the burden on citizens? Talking about enacting legislation, and reforming infrastructure, and the police are things that take a lot of time. In the meantime, do we just tell citizens get used to 500 of you dying a year and this is the new normal until we fix it a few years from now.
And this violence has not been going on for half a century, are you seriously? The amount of murders in this city has fucking doubled in the last 7 years.
We have never, and I literally mean NEVER had back to back years of 500 murders before the last two years. Never had three years of 490+ which is the last three.
There was only one year before the previous two where we had 500 murders, which was 1990. The population at the time was 1.586 mil, which is literally more than the population we have now, albeit slightly, but we still have more bodies today. This means homicide per capita is higher than it ever was in the 90s, fucking wild.
We are not at the status quo, we are well fucking above it. Again, this is why trying something new makes sense, we are dealing with unprecedented homicides. But hey, if you ain't feeling it I suppose it's just business as usual in the city, screw those poor ppl amirite?
this_shit t1_je5prha wrote
The question of criminal deterrence has been extensively studied and the #1 thing PPD could do to discourage more crimes is to catch more criminals. That's why clearance rates matter, and that's why candidates that are calling for more detectives and for more non-police investigators are better than candidates calling for the army.
BTW, with respect to 'trying new things' -- it's not like we haven't tried 'call the national guard' for law enforcement before. It leads to M2 .50cal machine guns being fired at residential buildings because part time soldiers thought they heard a gunshot and got spooked (Newark, NJ 1967).
If we want to try new things how about taking criminal investigation away from the police department and making it a standalone professional agency that can hire people who don't come up from patrol officers. There's lots of people with relevant investigatory skills who can't become detectives because they didn't go to the police academy in their early 20s. IT, accounting, digital forensics, etc are all highly relevant to solving shootings these days.
QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5twur wrote
We used to have a murder clearance rate of +60% just a decade ago, well above national average. However, we saw murders literally doubled since then. How did murders double if clearance rate was higher than average here for years and that is the best deterrent?
You think investigations are floundering for those reasons? Investigations are failing because communities don't trust cops, and witnesses are the main tool used in these types of murders. Go talk to ADAs they will tell you getting someone to come testify in court is hard as fuck today, unlike 10 years ago.
The clearance rate for black homicides have fell off a cliff over the last few years because of the deterioration of police relations with communities.
Also, your answer is let's wait years to fix shit to try and save ppl. Again, this is just the perfect being the enemy of the good. You want 500 people to die yearly and only will try anything that you deem is the BEST way to solve the problem. That is so damn inefficient and sacrifices citizens of this city so you can moral grandstand.
I think if something can be done, it's worth trying it because things have literally NEVER BEEN WORSE when it comes to homicides in the city
this_shit t1_je65kjt wrote
Man, I say this from a place of love and completely separately from anything we're disagreeing about here: I think you should reread your comment, count up the number of times you say 'you want...' or 'you think...' and then check my comments to see if I actually said any of those things.
You're saying I said a bunch of things I didn't say and IMHO that's a red flag for a kind of mental place where you start to see anyone who disagrees with you about anything as your enemy. I say this because I've been there, and it's not a happy place.
Feel free to ignore me, but I hope you have a peaceful and happy day.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments