> The process has been explained several times above. You're either not reading it or just don't care enough to listen to people who know what they are talking about.

No, none of you can distinguish between the scenarios that I'm talking about.

> Also, there's a difference between a fire alarm going off and a report of an actual fire.

A fire alarm going off can be a serious emergency though. I know that it's less likely to be an actual emergency, but it can be. They should act with urgency until they know that it's not an actual emergency.

I have no fucking clue why you and so many other people here seem to not understand the basic fact.

Until emergency services know that an emergency call isn't an actual emergency, they should act with urgency.

Edit: So apparently, nobody thinks that emergency responders should act with urgency when they receive emergency calls, so I'm not sure why anybody is mad at the story in the OP. They're doing exactly what you all want: not acting with urgency.

Again, I know that not all calls to emergency services are actual emergencies, but when the call is claimed to be a real emergency, I expect urgency.

If someone called 911 and said that their dad was having a stroke, I would expect sirens and quickness and not casual walking up to the door.

Because of the definitions of the words that I used?

I don't know. I'd have to learn the bus schedule and then see if that was convenient for me to go to work.

Yes, but when the call is for a claimed actual emergency, I expect urgency, not casualness.

I've seen them respond to reports of fire at my building extremely casually. They didn't know that there wasn't an emergency yet.

Still, they are emergencies. They should be urgent.

I'm always a bit confused when I see first responders casually walking to a person or a fire. I get that a few seconds or a couple of minutes usually doesn't, but it obviously can matter, especially for their job.

More benches.

Free for me. The federal government pays for my metro commute.

I can drive to work in rush hour in about the same time it takes me to metro, but metro is free, and I can be on my phone the entire time instead of stressing out driving in the car.

They need to do this 24/7 on 14th Street. It's six lanes, 3 on each side, but:

• Right lane: all parking, so useless for driving.
• Middle lane: frequently blocked by Ubers/Lyfts/UberEats/GrubHub/UPS/FedEx/etc. drivers waiting to pick up people/food or drop people/packages off OR cars trying to turn right but can't because of pedestrians crossing the street
• Left lane: frequently blocked by drivers trying to turn left

There's no lane that you don't get stuck in or have to weave out of.

Vigilante justice is bad.

Why is this specifically an example of it? Nothing has been granted yet.

Yeah, if you can, but that's not always possible. The whole "shoot them in the arm thing" is a Hollywood fantasy.

> Big assumption.

Exactly. That's why I included it. I don't necessarily trust what the police say, but hopefully there is bodycam footage or something.

I mean, if you're driving away in a stolen car with one officer inside while dragging another one, maybe that one justifies force that could kill a 17-year-old.

Assuming the article is accurate.

Here's the thing to the people complaining about the crime reform bill because "crime is out of control": if you think crime is out of control now, that's under current law, so by killing the crime reform bill, you're literally supporting the very same laws that you think are currently causing crime to be "out of control".

If a 40-year maximum sentence doesn't deter car-jacking, are you asking for life in prison for carjacking? It's just a ridiculous, poorly reasoned attack on the reform act.

Massive own goal.

The new Donsak in Woodley Park is very good.

Show me the year-by-year data. You can't just compare the beginning and ends of time periods to show a trend. Come on, it's basic statistics.

So you can't prove your claim.

Got it.

I don't acknowledge that at all since you haven't proven it. Try posting number of murders per year with number officers per year if you want to show a correlation.

Starting a trend at the minimum isn't really how you do trends if it's pretty flat around that minimum.

There's a clear shift of trends between 2008 and 2009 where it dropped 22% in one year. There was one outlier year in 2015. Then in 2018, it started shooting up again.

Between 2009 and 2017, there wasn't a whole lot of variation except for 2015.

There were 3800 in 2020 when murders started going up again.

If we give them more money and officers, they don't seem to do any better though.