"Shooting incidents declined in January by 20% (40 vs. 50) and shooting victims declined by 30.9% (47 vs. 68).
Murders plummeted by a staggering 60% (12 vs. 30), marking the fewest for January in recorded city history. Murder declined in every single borough.
Tisch credited an enhanced police presence through the department’s Winter Violence Reduction Plan, launched last month, for the decrease in shootings.
As part of the cold-weather anti-violence plan, the department deployed up to 1,800 uniformed officers to nightly foot posts across 64 zones in 33 precincts, public housing, and the subway system.
Major crime is down around 36%, Tisch said, since the program started."
So the answer is more police after all. Where’s the ‘abolish police’ crowd now?
The “abolish police” crowd you’re talking about were never asking for no policing. They were asking for a change in how it’s done. In my opinion, ideally, it would be abolishing the police as it exists today, and implementing community policing in some form. This seems to be a step towards that at least, but one important compenent is that the police should have to be a part of the community being policed. If they’re outsiders, like they frequently are today, they have no stake in the community.
Anyway, obviously we still need some kind of policing. The shit you’re told is a lie though. People wanted the police system we have today gone and replaced with more effective alternatives. Showing that changing how policing works having a positive effect only proves the point.
However, this doesn’t prove anything else. For all we know, from this information, getting rid of police entirely could have a beneficial effect. The data here doesn’t give us any information on that, so even the most extreme “no policing” stance that you’re strawmaning isn’t disproven here. We don’t have information to make an inference. It just makes you look stupid to claim this proves more policing is good. I can show you data where that alone has been bad, but obviously that wouldn’t prove that sometimes more policing can be good, and I wouldn’t make that claim because I’m not an idiot.
First of all, it was defund not abolish. The point was to reduce the workload of the police to just dealing with criminal activity and not have them dealing with stuff better suited to others like medical professionals or counselors.
"Shooting incidents declined in January by 20% (40 vs. 50) and shooting victims declined by 30.9% (47 vs. 68).
Murders plummeted by a staggering 60% (12 vs. 30), marking the fewest for January in recorded city history. Murder declined in every single borough.
Tisch credited an enhanced police presence through the department’s Winter Violence Reduction Plan, launched last month, for the decrease in shootings.
As part of the cold-weather anti-violence plan, the department deployed up to 1,800 uniformed officers to nightly foot posts across 64 zones in 33 precincts, public housing, and the subway system.
Major crime is down around 36%, Tisch said, since the program started."
So the answer is more police after all. Where’s the ‘abolish police’ crowd now?
It looks more like “police can’t just sit in squad cars all day looking for people to harass” which is a better use of resources.
The “abolish police” crowd you’re talking about were never asking for no policing. They were asking for a change in how it’s done. In my opinion, ideally, it would be abolishing the police as it exists today, and implementing community policing in some form. This seems to be a step towards that at least, but one important compenent is that the police should have to be a part of the community being policed. If they’re outsiders, like they frequently are today, they have no stake in the community.
Anyway, obviously we still need some kind of policing. The shit you’re told is a lie though. People wanted the police system we have today gone and replaced with more effective alternatives. Showing that changing how policing works having a positive effect only proves the point.
However, this doesn’t prove anything else. For all we know, from this information, getting rid of police entirely could have a beneficial effect. The data here doesn’t give us any information on that, so even the most extreme “no policing” stance that you’re strawmaning isn’t disproven here. We don’t have information to make an inference. It just makes you look stupid to claim this proves more policing is good. I can show you data where that alone has been bad, but obviously that wouldn’t prove that sometimes more policing can be good, and I wouldn’t make that claim because I’m not an idiot.
First of all, it was defund not abolish. The point was to reduce the workload of the police to just dealing with criminal activity and not have them dealing with stuff better suited to others like medical professionals or counselors.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1opyOlgSzs8
Minneapolis mayor says “I do not support full abolition of the police” and the crowd tells him to “get the fuck out”.
They ask him about “defunding police” and clarify that they mean “we don’t want no more police”. Hard to put it clearer.
Now, please, tell me again that there was no ‘abolish police’ crowd.
Both stances exist and called for a reduction of police.
Abolish the slave catcher department and start over