Hypothetical question regarding policing

[paindonthurt]

Both scenarios are same area and same road. 1 main way into town and same way back out.

A. Posting a cop up during the day to catch speeding.

B. Posting a cop up at night to catch someone vandalizing/burglarizing neighborhoods off the main road.

How would you allocate resources between the 2?

80/20 A2B
80/20 B2A
50/50
100/0
0/100

Thoughts?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

80/20 B2A.

 

[Rupert Jenkins]

Agree with Goat. I would prioritize real crime. I have had that discussion as I was recieving a speeding ticket. Plenty of real crime needing to be addressed

 

[thatsbaseball]

LOL I've known some small towns that have done A2B and they all ended up with high crime and thousands of dollars worth of uncollectible fines from tickets given to their locals.

 

[paindonthurt]

80/20 B2A.

This seems logical. But we've learned being logical is being rac.....

 

[Seinfeld]

Agree with Goat. I would prioritize real crime. I have had that discussion as I was recieving a speeding ticket. Plenty of real crime needing to be addressed

I agree with the resource allocation, but I also think it's at least worth mentioning that vehicular deaths have outnumbered violent crime deaths at a rate of nearly 2:1 for several years. Maybe the question, though, is more about whether we really need a human police resource to keep things like speeding in check. There's plenty of tech out there to not have to tie them up with it in a lot of areas

 

[paindonthurt]

I agree with the resource allocation, but I also think it's at least worth mentioning that vehicular deaths have outnumbered violent crime deaths at a rate of nearly 2:1 for several years. Maybe the question, though, is more about whether we really need a human police resource to keep things like speeding in check. There's plenty of tech out there to not have to tie them up with it in a lot of areas

I think most of that tech has become obsolete due to lawyers but I could be wrong about that.

Id also think vehicle deaths inside the city limits would be a lot lower.

 

[Dawgbite]

Reform Alabama would like to add to this conversation.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

Park 10 cops at the county line and nail every last person going 10 over.

The rest takes care of itself.

 

[paindonthurt]

Park 10 cops at the county line and nail every last person going 10 over.

The rest takes care of itself.

No it doesn’t.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

No it doesn’t.

I yield to your mob ties.

 

[paindonthurt]

I yield to your mob ties.

There are some problems coming from out of oktibbeha county but not all of them.

Unless you are making a joke I didn’t get.

 

[mstateglfr]

80/20 b/a


Hey OP- what's your view and whatis the actual example since this seems specific for a truly hypothetical hypothetical?

 

[PRAVan1996]

I'd be curious about the specifics of B. How many neighborhoods? How big are they? How often are things happening? How many burglaries versus vandalism? And what kind of vandalism? How many cops do you want patrolling? And what percentage of the nighttime on-duty force is that? How is a cop going to know someone is a criminal versus someone who lives/works at a property? Are these "perps" potentially armed or just some kids up to no good?

Also, one seems to be during the day and one at night. How big is the force? What would prevent that precinct from doing both?

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

Both scenarios are same area and same road. 1 main way into town and same way back out.

A. Posting a cop up during the day to catch speeding.

B. Posting a cop up at night to catch someone vandalizing/burglarizing neighborhoods off the main road.

How would you allocate resources between the 2?

80/20 A2B
80/20 B2A
50/50
100/0
0/100

Thoughts?

100% A. Policing in small towns is mostly about producing revenue. Easiest way in a small town( which is what it sounds like) is speeding tickets. In larger cities, there are bigger fish to fry in the form of seizing drug money.

 

[FQDawg]

One thing to consider is that courts have consistently ruled that the police have no actual duty to protect and serve private citizens.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Most traffic tickets don't help the community. They are mainly parasitic in nature.

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

I got a ticket in Starkville a couple weeks ago for not coming to a complete stop at a three way stop. Only car at the intersection so I rolled through it. Then I saw the cop sitting right there waiting for me. He was looking for people doing what I just did. Nothing close to $200 won't cure.

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

With vehicular thefts being at an all time high and carjacking relating crimes being high. They need to post more on neighborhoods protecting people and property

 

[paindonthurt]

100% A. Policing in small towns is mostly about producing revenue. Easiest way in a small town( which is what it sounds like) is speeding tickets. In larger cities, there are bigger fish to fry in the form of seizing drug money.

Doesn’t surprise me.

you kooks are consistently kooky

 

[paindonthurt]

One thing to consider is that courts have consistently ruled that the police have no actual duty to protect and serve private citizens.

Interesting take

 

[paindonthurt]

With vehicular thefts being at an all time high and carjacking relating crimes being high. They need to post more on neighborhoods protecting people and property

Nah. Catching a guy doing 34 in a 30 is way more important!

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

After paying my speeding fines, All four of them, to the city of New Orleans for going 24 in a 20 from a speed camera grinds my gears. Don't understand how those cameras are still legal. Nola can catch your plate going down a road with a speeding cam but not car jackers and other ****

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

Doesn’t surprise me.

you kooks are consistently kooky

I’m telling you what they will do, dipshit. Your question was dumb and rhetorical. You can bet your *** you will get a smartass reply.

People don’t realize that the police’s number one job is to collect revenue (ie secure easy, cheap convictions and collect drug money). Traffic trickets and weed crimes…which lead to money seizures. The number one reason marijuana is still illegal in some parts of the United States is because that garbage line written in a report (I detected the smell of marijuana emitting from the vehicle). It gives cops the ability to search anything and anyone in the car. You can’t smell weed in a sealed bag in a trunk…you just made it up after you found something in your illegal search. Oh there’s cash! Bingo. More specifically, our drug policies are designed to support the cartels and gangs while the police industrial complex feeds their families off the movement of illegal drugs.

 

[paindonthurt]

I’m telling you what they will do, dipshit. Your question was dumb and rhetorical. You can bet your *** you will get a smartass reply.

People don’t realize that the police’s number one job is to collect revenue (ie secure easy, cheap convictions and collect drug money). Traffic trickets and weed crimes…which lead to money seizures. The number one reason marijuana is still illegal in some parts of the United States is because that garbage line written in a report (I detected the smell of marijuana emitting from the vehicle). It gives cops the ability to search anything and anyone in the car. You can’t smell weed in a sealed bag in a trunk…you just made it up after you found something in your illegal search. Oh there’s cash! Bingo. More specifically, our drug policies are designed to support the cartels and gangs while the police industrial complex feeds their families off the movement of illegal drugs.

Doesn’t surprise me.

 

[FQDawg]

Interesting take

It’s not a “take.” It’s how courts, even the Supreme Court, have ruled for years. The only responsibility cops have is to protect the state. They are under no obligation to protect private citizens or private property.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

It’s not a “take.” It’s how courts, even the Supreme Court, have ruled for years. The only responsibility cops have is to protect the state. They are under no obligation to protect private citizens or private property.

It’s only been like that for nearly 40 years…coincidentally, nearly the exact same time the war on drugs ramped up. Welcome to the United States.

 

[FQDawg]

So I did miss one important distinction. Cops do have a responsibility to protect someone they have in custody. But, again, they have no obligation to prevent (or even respond to) the burglaries or vandalism examples in the original post. Or really anything else. Even having a protective order against someone does not necessarily obligate the police to act (see second story below).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/...ing-police.html?smid=tw-nytnational&smtyp=cur

But police officers, in fact, generally are not under any legal obligation to protect citizens who are not in their custody.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/supreme-court-uvalde-texas-shooting-rcna31220

Because the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police departments don’t actually have a constitutional obligation to protect people. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) sued city of Castle Rock, Colorado, alleging that the police department's failure to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband enabled him to kill their three daughters.

On June 22, 1999, Lenahan reportedly tried for hours to get police to find and arrest her estranged husband, who had taken possession of the three children hours earlier. But the police did not take action, even though Lenahan had obtained a restraining order against him weeks earlier.

Lenahan’s legal team argued that the police were derelict in their duty, but after several failed appeals in lower courts, the Supreme Court eventually ruled against her. For the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “We do not believe that these provisions of Colorado law truly made enforcement of restraining orders mandatory. A well established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.”

In other words: Just because police say they’ll help doesn’t mean they must.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Reform Alabama would like to add to this conversation.

I've been "Reformed"

 

[Faustdog]

I think most of that tech has become obsolete due to lawyers but I could be wrong about that...

Which brings us to another question. Have lawyers ruined everything?

The answer is obviously yes.

 

[paindonthurt]

It’s not a “take.” It’s how courts, even the Supreme Court, have ruled for years. The only responsibility cops have is to protect the state. They are under no obligation to protect private citizens or private property.

Ok but that doesn’t explain why they’d prefer writing tickets during the day vs arresting actual criminals at night.

Neither really protect the state or the city.

 

[paindonthurt]

So I did miss one important distinction. Cops do have a responsibility to protect someone they have in custody. But, again, they have no obligation to prevent (or even respond to) the burglaries or vandalism examples in the original post. Or really anything else. Even having a protective order against someone does not necessarily obligate the police to act (see second story below).

Well that certainly sounds logical.

 

[Dawgbite]

I've been "Reformed"

You really haven't lived until you've been Reformed and Gordo'd on the same trip.

 

[FQDawg]

Ok but that doesn’t explain why they’d prefer writing tickets during the day vs arresting actual criminals at night.

Neither really protect the state or the city.

But as others have mentioned, writing tickets brings in revenue. Generally speaking, chasing down criminals, especially ones committing vandalism or burglary, does not.

You can also make the argument that stopping speeders serves the public interest since speeding generally happens in public spaces. Meanwhile, the burglary/vandalism in your example is seemingly happening on private property.

So given a choice between the two, it’s fairly obvious which one they’d pick. Especially since they technically don’t have to do either.

I’m not saying it should be this way. But the reality is that the judicial system in this country has decided that it is this way.

 

[paindonthurt]

But as others have mentioned, writing tickets brings in revenue. Generally speaking, chasing down criminals, especially ones committing vandalism or burglary, does not.

You can also make the argument that stopping speeders serves the public interest since speeding generally happens in public spaces. Meanwhile, the burglary/vandalism in your example is seemingly happening on private property.

So given a choice between the two, it’s fairly obvious which one they’d pick. Especially since they technically don’t have to do either.

I’m not saying it should be this way. But the reality is that the judicial system in this country has decided that it is this way.

The reality is that is dumb as 17.

Yeah speeding fines might generate some revenue but it is nothing in comparison to what a growing community offers with an affluent population.

Maybe if more people on the Larry side would demand that we’d all be demanding that and we could change “judicial” system.

 

[BossDawg78]

Agree with Goat. I would prioritize real crime. I have had that discussion as I was recieving a speeding ticket. Plenty of real crime needing to be addressed

How do you know that speed traps aren't getting high priority criminals and such off the street? Because they do.

 

[mstateglfr]

The reality is that is dumb as 17.

Yeah speeding fines might generate some revenue but it is nothing in comparison to what a growing community offers with an affluent population.

Maybe if more people on the Larry side would demand that we’d all be demanding that and we could change “judicial” system.

Your comments in this post change the parameters of the original post.
Initially, you describe a town with 1 main way in and the same way out.

That almost never describes a growing community with an affluent population.
It almost always describes a small town that is stagnant on population growth, which in turn means taxes, housing, and business are also level or down.

 

[FQDawg]

The reality is that is dumb as 17.

Yeah speeding fines might generate some revenue but it is nothing in comparison to what a growing community offers with an affluent population.

Maybe if more people on the Larry side would demand that we’d all be demanding that and we could change “judicial” system.

I'm not sure what "on the Larry side" means.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

How do you know that speed traps aren't getting high priority criminals and such off the street? Because they do.

Speed traps have nothing to do with public safety or getting bad guys off the streets. It's all about fleecing the tax payers for extra money. I know cops are doing what they're told to do but you gotta be some kinda A-Hole that gets off on writing $200 tickets for such minor traffic offenses.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

I'm not sure what "on the Larry side" means.