No i described an area of a town with one main way in to town and one main way back to that area.
This is a real world example of a town experiencing this. It’s affluent. It’s more than 20,000 people.
Hypothetical question regarding policing
- Thread starter paindonthurt
- Start date
- Status
This is a real world example of a town experiencing this. It’s affluent. It’s more than 20,000 people.
When you're a little kid, you think Curly is the funny one.
Get a little older, and you look to Moe.
But when you learn a little bit and become a grown man, you realize Larry is the funniest one.
You can say you were clear, even though you werent, but you saying you were clear doesnt mean everyone understood you. Many comments so far have been about small towns and taxes. Why do you think that is?...its because your initial post read like this was a small stagnant town.
Maybe others are more literate in Paindonthurt-ese and knew what you meant to say, but clearly not everyone speaks your language.
90/10 B2A
That doesn't generate as much revenue or arrests though. Depts need to justify budget increases with measurable data. With less tickets being written and less arrests being made (although the arrests would be of a higher quality IMO), they will be asked why they need more money if their numbers went down.
But they DO get bad guys off the street and they do help minimize speeds and get drunks off the road, thus helping public safety. That's the point. And you have to be a pretty sad cop living in some country dump if all you live for is writing $200 speeding tickets.
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification. But in this instance, you have it backwards. Generally speaking, conservative justices are the ones who make rulings that say police don't have to protect individual citizens or private property. The progressive judges are usually the ones writing the dissent in those cases.
Well, ideally, we want cops catching as many criminals as possible while harassing law abiding citizens as little as possible. Speed traps (generally) only harass speeders. Something like a roadblock harasses the law abiding. Given that, I can't interpret what you mean by B. Is this a roadblock? If not, is the cop looking for traffic infractions to justify a pullover to look for signs of other crime? Is he just there watching the houses/businesses for break ins?
again that reasoning is insane and dumb.
I understand you aren't saying that, but i'd be touting my "numbers" by showing how much crime has dropped.
Seems odd again since most leftists want to not arrest or imprison criminals.
It doesn't matter my reply. You'll have some stupid rebuttal. We'll go round and round.
I'll make it easy for your DA. Either spend 50/50 on the 2 b/c they are both important but different OR spend 80% patrolling the neighborhoods where crime and vandalism is happening and 20% trying to catch otherwise law abiding citizens for going over the speed limit.
Talking about dumb replies. This is a dumb reply.
Ok, I see you’re not being serious anymore. Though maybe you haven’t really been serious this entire time, in which case, congrats, you got me.
Oh so there isn’t a huge push to be way more lenient on criminals by the left?
i guess I made that up.
The discussion about the function of police was interesting. Whatever troll-like tangent you’re on now - where you make a strawman argument that is so broad and sweeping as to be meaningless - is not.
Does our Constitution encourage government to "seek out" a wrong doing when a citizen is simply traveling?
Where did I say I was clear?
Man y’all keep them goal posts moving all over the 17ing place.
That's your view of the lefts position? I literally know children with a better understanding.
You did not explicitly claim you clearly stated that the example was an affluent neighborhood.
What you did do was claim you described something that you hadn't described. I even put both descriptions next to one another.
I took your post where you claim you described an area of town as you saying you think it was obvious you had done that.
Have you even given your opinion on you hypothetical that isn't a hypothetical and also isn't even the scenario you initially described? What % should police dedicate to each activity?
I’ve made it clear what I thought police should do.
I don’t think it . I know it. It’s been proven if the goal is to stop actual crime.
spend 80% of your resources where 80% of the crime happens.
Between the 2 options I listed it’s real clear that 80% should be focused on burglary and vandalism and 20% on speeding.
If resources aren’t an issue, look for speeding during the day and focus on the neighborhood at night.
And again it’s not a hypothetical. It’s an actual example and city.
So what you describe is pretty close to where I live. On 98 everyone goes 65 in the 55 and 55 in the 45 zones and rarely are people pulled over by Sherriff patrol. Most of the area is unincorporated. If someone is pulled over it’s normally a Highway Patrolman. I asked a neighbor that’s a deputy why that is and he said they have bigger things to worry about, plus they get very little income from tickets. They only pull people over if they are doing something egregious. Santa Rosa county’s 21 revenue was 166 million, of which 350,000 was from fines. 66 million was from property taxes, so it makes financial sense to keep the area safe for higher property values.
So I think you are agreeing with me and wrecking all of these other arguments I’ve seen that are asinine about revenue from speeding tickets.
Yeah. I’m sure different cities, counties, and states handle ticket revenue differently, but what you say is 100 percent applicable here. The deputies are parked on the side of the road up and down 98 as a deterrent, but as someone that worked at a CU and had multiple burglar alarms mistakenly triggered, I can tell you their motivation was stopping real crime. They were on site within minutes when we had an alarm go off.
And to be clear. I don’t have a problem with them hanging out during the day and writing speeding tickets.
But you better be back at night stopping real crime that could hurt the people really funding the city accounts.
A speed trap on S montgomery st at 1 p.m. on a weekday isn't helping get drunks off the street.
It might help public safety slightly, but I bet it doesnt move the needle especially compared to vandalism and burglary.
Can't wait for the reaction of some of you people when an "innocent juvenile" gets shot for beating on someones door at 330 a.m. with a hoodie on and his hands in his pocket. I can already hear the screams for the innocent!!!!!
When that citizen is breaking the law/speed limit and endangering lives, then yes. Ever heard of "broken windows" policing." You have to enforce speeds, otherwise before long people will be using roads as their personal drag strips. Stop being paranoid good Lord. There isn't some grand committee of policing that meets every year trying to figure out how to get more money out of citizens or violate their Constitutional rights.
Last edited:
Yeah, it does. You'd be surprised. Ask a cop how often speed traps and random traffic stops end up in getting a high profile warrant, drunk, or druggie of the street, no matter what time. They still patrol bad neighborhoods for vandals and burglars, too, despite popular opinion. The problem is they simply can't stop a person that "looks" like a vandal or burglar walking in a neighborhood or if they see someone knocking on a door. They have to wait on the criminal to do his thing, a call, and by the time the cop responds he's long gone.
Last edited:
I agree that the reasoning is dumb, but that's the way it is.
If using low crime as a positive reason for a budget increase, you know there will always be at least one to claim, "Why are we always increasing their budget? Crime is low"
I know this one. If someone is "traveling" behind the wheel and not "driving" then they can't be charged with any crimes they may or may not have committed. I saw it on Youtube
**********
- Status