BrightThru2014

BrightThru2014 t1_ja3l4yw wrote

You just said the data doesn’t show a correlation — soo don’t you have the data in front of you?

More cops = less crime in the long-run compared to baseline existing crime rate (caused by external social factors). The 90s were the height of the crack epidemic, the baseline crime rate was far higher — and over time, the police were able to bring the crime rate down.

−1

BrightThru2014 t1_ja3j7k2 wrote

Huh? I’m sorry you can’t do data analysis? Numbers are all there.

DC also has a much higher base line policing requirement due to staffing protests and protecting soft targets. So the comparison of police officers to other U.S. cities is just sort of sadly ignorant of the underlying arguments here.

More cops = less murders. Sorry that makes you upset.

−2

BrightThru2014 t1_ja3c5oy wrote

Well in this case the escalating staffing issues resulted in an increased (i.e. over doubling of the) murder rate…so maybe we should listen to them?

Also some user posted an analysis awhile back about how DC will always need more police officers per capita than other cities because they have to staff more protests, protect more soft targets, etc.

1

BrightThru2014 t1_ja36nhr wrote

I am saying the nationwide increase in murders is less than the increase in murders in DC on a per capital basis. This further correlates with a drop in the number of police officers during that same period in DC. Hence, the drop in police officers correlates with a disproportionate surge in crime in DC. Can you follow?

0

BrightThru2014 t1_ja2r6kv wrote

Yeah the violent crime statistics can easily be juked (as is supported by the numbers re: actual arrests) year over year and suffer from reporting bias. Now do the same analysis with murders — you can’t fake a murder rate or hide a body. That’s your best proxy for overarching crime trends. And the correlation with the number of officers employed is crystal clear.

−3