Trump to reduce crime

[+DieChecker]

6 minutes ago, aztek said:

i just do not think it will happen that way, nor it would do a thing,  exactly urban slums, where most of violent crimes happen, no room with  monitors will do a thing, to help a girl A be raped and killed by a guy B in an urban slum. but a gun in girls pocket will, and it wont cost a penny to taxpayers, nor it needs rooms with monitors, and extra task force,  i'm telling you he is placing figures on the board. 

I simply don't think we can say until they try it. Obama certainly thought gangsters killing each other was fine, since he talked some about it, and then did nothing about it.

I do agree if we had more trained responsible gun carrying citizens, we'd have less crime in general. Crime will not decrease without some deterrent. 

[aztek]

we already have dozens of task forces in each large city, numerous different federal agencies as well.  why would another one make a difference . but ok,  i'll agree lets wait and see.  

 honestly i have no problem gangsters killing each other either. as long as they kill each other.

best deterrent is a bullet right on the spot, it is hardwired in our brain, countless cctv videos show even armed gangsters run if someone shoots at them, yet they could not care less about getting caught, standing a trial, and going to prison where they have plenty of friends, same gang members. whether the sentence is 5, or 8 years does not matter to them.

also gangs have money they pay lawyers, lawyers play our flawed system to their advantage, they do not care much about entire justice system much.

Edited February 11, 2017 by aztek

[Stubbly_Dooright]

6 hours ago, aztek said:

no you are saying that, i was saying something totally different

No I am not. I am asking you based on what you said. That's why I'm asking, so you can clarify. 

[aztek]

1 minute ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

No I am not. I am asking you based on what you said. That's why I'm asking, so you can clarify. 

in my entire post i did not assign blame to anyone, did not even imply it, so  you must have read someone else post, or you read what you want to read not what is written, in either case, i can't help you.

btw i made few post on this subject, here, saying basically same thing. if you really follow the thread, you'd get the meaning.

[maxcred]

21 hours ago, Yamato said:

Much of these E.O.s is just fluff and statements of intent.  

These three new ones however include even more bureaucracy.   More alphabet soup because we don't have nearly enough government as it is, and violent crime is at a 47 year high.

Can you please tell us where you get your information that violent crime is at a 47 year high. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, aztek said:

more police with more power, less accountability, i see it as incredibly bad.

...i would rather the police had more powers and less accountability than the criminals. I'm okay with that.

[Gromdor]

31 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...i would rather the police had more powers and less accountability than the criminals. I'm okay with that.

Like in Judge Dredd?

 

[Agent0range]

2 hours ago, maxcred said:

Can you please tell us where you get your information that violent crime is at a 47 year high. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

Our President said so!  And if you don't believe everything he says, get out!

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Like in Judge Dredd?

 

I see where you're going with this. Judge Dredd wouldn't be a good thing but certainly much better than scarface and John Gotti types dictating what happens in my neighbourhood. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

in my entire post i did not assign blame to anyone, did not even imply it, so  you must have read someone else post, or you read what you want to read not what is written, in either case, i can't help you.

btw i made few post on this subject, here, saying basically same thing. if you really follow the thread, you'd get the meaning.

Actually,  from the posts I have been seeing of yours here and others, I sometimes cannot get what your meaning is. So, if I grab the points I got from your post that I quoted in post #42 of mine: 

Quote

i agree, the title is wrong, no EO can reduce crime,  not the way he wrote them anyway, only potential victim protecting themselves and not letting crime to be committed against them can actually reduce crimes. another thing that reduces crimes are justifiable shootings, they take criminals out permanently

So, can a potential victim keep themselves from crime 100% of the time or be reduced? If I am getting you correctly from this thread, ( and excuse me, I do happen to work on the weekends ) you are against support of the police. Or did I get that wrong? 

Like I said, preventative measures to keep yourself from being a victim, is something you must do. But one still becomes a victim no matter what one does. Wouldn't the support of the police be the thing to do?

[aztek]

42 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

So, can a potential victim keep themselves from crime 100% of the time or be reduced? If I am getting you correctly from this thread, ( and excuse me, I do happen to work on the weekends ) you are against support of the police. Or did I get that wrong? 

Like I said, preventative measures to keep yourself from being a victim, is something you must do. But one still becomes a victim no matter what one does. Wouldn't the support of the police be the thing to do?

only death is 100%

if you see your self a victim no matter what you do, well, sux to be you than.  

i'm against oversupporting and overestimating  importance of police.

 

Edited February 11, 2017 by aztek

[Stubbly_Dooright]

27 minutes ago, aztek said:

only death is 100%

if you see your self a victim no matter what you do, well, sux to be you than.  

i'm against oversupporting and overestimating  importance of police.

 

Well, one, you didn't really read my posts properly. I do not see myself or see anyone really seeing themselves as victims no matter what they do. I told you, I agree and believe in trying to protecting yourself before. It's just not always the cure. 

I have a feeling that your feelings, (based by your last sentence) is going to come back to haunt you. *shrugs* 

 

[Gunn]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I see where you're going with this. Judge Dredd wouldn't be a good thing but certainly much better than scarface and John Gotti types dictating what happens in my neighbourhood.

We really wouldn't want either one if we can help it. That's a narrow line that can go bad for us either way if we steer right or left from it. There needs to be checks and balance so neither criminals nor cops can gain too much power. Of course we always want our police and sheriffs to be a force to be reckoned with against the criminals, but we got to be careful how much power we give the police. There needs to be a limit at some point or else we'll end up living in a oppressive police state.
 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Purifier said:

We really wouldn't want either one if we can help it. That's a narrow line that can go bad for us either way if we steer right or left from it. There needs to be checks and balance so neither criminals nor cops can gain too much power. Of course we always want our police and sheriffs to be a force to be reckoned with against the criminals, but we got to be careful how much power we give the police. There needs to be a limit at some point or else we'll end up living in a oppressive police state.
 

This is were we differ greatly. I really don't care for any symbiotic relationship between the cop's and the criminals. Or those that skate on the thin line in-between. There is no checks and balance in my mind other than right or wrong. I understand what you're saying and all... the need for moderation, but its easier to police the cop's than the criminals and those doing the right thing. I'm not suggesting Duterte type law enforcing (with coincidently has seen a drop of 31% in crime in the Philippines) but zero tolerance and effective punishment is more sustainable. I differ greatly with Trump, in this instance i support him.     

[Gunn]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

This is were we differ greatly. I really don't care for any symbiotic relationship between the cop's and the criminals. Or those that skate on the thin line in-between. There is no checks and balance in my mind other than right or wrong. I understand what you're saying and all... the need for moderation, but its easier to police the cop's than the criminals and those doing the right thing. I'm not suggesting Duterte type law enforcing (with coincidently has seen a drop of 31% in crime in the Philippines) but zero tolerance and effective punishment is more sustainable. I differ greatly with Trump, in this instance i support him.   

But I'm not talking about "this instance", I'm talking about your reply to Gromdor about preferring a type of Judge Dread society. In that type of society there is no simple right or wrong, because just about anything you do can easily become wrong because somebody higher up doesn't think it's right for you. No it's more like a extreme limit of how much freedom an individual has to the point they're being nannied to death by the police like a child. And then convicted\jailed for something that doesn't truly hurt anybody else but themselves, whether it's screwing up their own health or speaking grievances against their own government. That type of society is about dictatorship and control, being watched and complete control over everything you do. A Orwellian society.

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Purifier

[Unusual Tournament]

19 minutes ago, Purifier said:

But I'm not talking about "this instance", I'm talking about your reply to Gromdor about being ok with a type of Judge Dread society. In that type of society there is no simple right or wrong, because just about anything you do can easily become wrong because somebody higher up doesn't think it's right for you. No it's more like a extreme limit of how much freedom an individual has to the point they're being nannied to death by the police like a child. And then convicted\jailed for something that doesn't truly hurt anybody else but themselves, whether it's screwing up their own health or speaking grievances against their own government. That type of society is about dictatorship and control, being watched and complete control over everything you do. A Orwellian society.

 

Gromdor's original reply to me was tongue in cheek. Implying that i was holding a simplistic position concerning police powers. I answered by clarifying my position, that Judge Dredd was wrong as a template for police powers. You can check here.

7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I see where you're going with this. Judge Dredd wouldn't be a good thing but certainly much better than scarface and John Gotti types dictating what happens in my neighbourhood. 

If i had to choose between a fictional gangsters paradise and an equally fictional Judge Dredd society then the choice is a no brainer. I'm going with Judge Dredd. But the thought of a Judge Dredd society in today's world is not the issue since we just don't have the technology to implement it and even if we did living in a democracy would make any illegal use of robotic cops impossible. In fact an electronic trail that a would make policing and convicting more easy. Imagine putting a generation of lawyers outta a job.  Well i don't really have a problem with more law and order. You do. But that's okay. But lets not go to an extreme Orwellian position when in reality a Judge Dredd could not happen in a healthy democracy.   

Edited February 12, 2017 by Captain Risky

[Clarakore]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

This is were we differ greatly. I really don't care for any symbiotic relationship between the cop's and the criminals. Or those that skate on the thin line in-between. There is no checks and balance in my mind other than right or wrong. I understand what you're saying and all... the need for moderation, but its easier to police the cop's than the criminals and those doing the right thing. I'm not suggesting Duterte type law enforcing (with coincidently has seen a drop of 31% in crime in the Philippines) but zero tolerance and effective punishment is more sustainable. I differ greatly with Trump, in this instance i support him.     

Did you just say in so many words "police the police?"

[Clarakore]

I prefer Robocop to Judge Dredd.

[Unusual Tournament]

33 minutes ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

Did you just say in so many words "police the police?"

I guess i did. 

[acidhead]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

This is were we differ greatly. I really don't care for any symbiotic relationship between the cop's and the criminals. Or those that skate on the thin line in-between. There is no checks and balance in my mind other than right or wrong. I understand what you're saying and all... the need for moderation, but its easier to police the cop's than the criminals and those doing the right thing. I'm not suggesting Duterte type law enforcing (with coincidently has seen a drop of 31% in crime in the Philippines) but zero tolerance and effective punishment is more sustainable. I differ greatly with Trump, in this instance i support him.     

Go to "The White House" facebook page.  It is the same page the last administration used.  Its pretty sad to read the majority former administrations followers criticize every post released.

The one post related to this thread has the former administrations followers calling down law inforcement. 

It doesn't matter what the Trump administration does the Left will criticize everything.

[Clarakore]

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

only death is 100%

if you see your self a victim no matter what you do, well, sux to be you than.  

i'm against oversupporting and overestimating  importance of police.

Who protects those who cannot protect themselves: children for example?   

I concur with not giving police more power and less oversight, but do we not employ police to counter crime?  Since the Greeks there have been polis men, city employees, watchmen, policemen. bobbies, and coppers.  It may not be a constitutional duty, but neither is being a fireman, we still pay taxes to hire firemen to deal with fires.

[Clarakore]

19 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Who protects those who cannot protect themselves: children for example?   

I concur with not giving police more power and less oversight, but do we not employ police to counter crime?  Since the Greeks there have been polis men, city employees, watchmen, policemen. bobbies, and coppers.  It may not be a constitutional duty, but neither is being a fireman, we still pay taxes to hire firemen to deal with fires.

What would happen if we made firemen do police work and put policemen to fighting fired?

Just a what if. Would be nice to have an alternate universe machine.

[Gunn]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Gromdor's original reply to me was tongue in cheek. Implying that i was holding a simplistic position concerning police powers. I answered by clarifying my position, that Judge Dredd was wrong as a template for police powers. You can check here.

Well then you didn't get where I was coming from or else you're turning this into a circular argument to get the last word in. Now, in that statement of yours, you typed that it was "certainly much better" than the other, as if you had to chose you'd prefer the Judge Dread society and again, all I'm telling you is that we'd wouldn't want either one to that extreme if we could help it.

 

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

If i had to choose between a fictional gangsters paradise and an equally fictional Judge Dredd society then the choice is a no brainer. I'm going with Judge Dredd. But the thought of a Judge Dredd society in today's world is not the issue since we just don't have the technology to implement it and even if we did living in a democracy would make any illegal use of robotic cops impossible. In fact an electronic trail that a would make policing and convicting more easy. Imagine putting a generation of lawyers outta a job.  Well i don't really have a problem with more law and order. You do. But that's okay. But lets not go to an extreme Orwellian position when in reality a Judge Dredd could not happen in a healthy democracy.

And no. Here you're assuming that I have a problem with a little more law and order, because why? Because based on Trump's recent EO's to reduce crime, when I never said I did? See now...either you're misunderstanding exactly what my argument is specifically about here or your just reaching here with that assumption and trying to jump back onto the Trump deal again to deflect my main argument and put me off. So okay now - pay attention here. I don't care about Trump's recent EO's to reduce crime, that's just the usual stuff politicians do when they get into office, what I'm trying to get you to understand is, when someone believes or would rather prefer we have either criminals or police with too much power and oppressing the rest of us, that's an obvious mistake for society as history shows. Look at North Korea. It's become a nightmare for some of the people in that country, while the elites run it now.

 

Edit to add: I guess I'm just disturbed when someone prefers one extreme over the other, like they think a third option is not available, when they should learn from history and should really say 'neither' as a third option.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Purifier

[aztek]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Who protects those who cannot protect themselves: children for example?   

I concur with not giving police more power and less oversight, but do we not employ police to counter crime?  Since the Greeks there have been polis men, city employees, watchmen, policemen. bobbies, and coppers.  It may not be a constitutional duty, but neither is being a fireman, we still pay taxes to hire firemen to deal with fires.

interesting question, who is doing it now?

we employ police to enforce the law, they can not fight crime by definition, their job starts after a crime has been committed. 

 i would not compare them to firemen, very different  purposes.