SPD pulling over people on S Montgomery

[paindonthurt]

As usual, I show facts and data to refute your point and all you can come back with is some version of "Nuh unh, I'm right even though I can't back up what I'm saying with any kind of supporting data."

I edited your statement so that it's more accurate. As someone explained above, people were indeed floating the idea that we move some funding away from police and more towards things like mental health services or other areas that might actually reduce crime. Because the police - while a necessary part of the fabric of society - don't really reduce crime since they can only ever react to it after it's happened. Multiple studies have shown that in areas where police get more funding, crime does not go down. And conversely, when police have their funding reduced, crime does not go up. And since police funding doesn't have an effect on crime, perhaps it's time to try funding other areas that might actually reduce crime.

I have family members in law enforcement. I am pro law enforcement. But I also don't think they are infallible - and neither do my relatives who work in law enforcement. I also don't think the police should be a One Size Fits All solution to every societal problem we have... which is kind of how we treat them.

You are refuting the point that many leftist were for abolishing/definding the police?

All I really need to do is find one or 2 articles to prove they were. If I do that, will you admit that many did?

Many does not mean all or majority.

 

[FQDawg]

I think you are misstating this. Courts have consistently held that police do not have a duty to protect people or property in the sense of a duty that can give rise to a negligence claim when the duty is breached. That is different from their job description. Under current precedent, they won't be subject to legal claims from crime victims for not doing their job, but they still have a job and in a decently functioning organization will be fired for refusing to do it.

I don’t think I am. Though, as always, if there are any legal experts that want to correct me, they are welcome to.

I think the first part - about not being subject to a negligence claim for failing to protect people or private property - is the key here. That says they (as a collective entity and as individuals that are part of the entity) don’t have to do anything for private citizens.

You’re right that an individual officer may have a job description. So if a captain says “go patrol that neighborhood,” then yes, an officer has to follow that direction. But if whoever is leading that unit decides to never tell officers to patrol that neighborhood, there’s nothing those residents can do about it. At least not from a legal perspective.

The fact that police are not subject to negligence claims effectively means that they (as an entity) don’t have to do anything for private citizens if they choose not to.

 

[paindonthurt]

I don't think kids are all innocent and mean no harm.
Haven't said that and haven't implied that. You are just claiming that is my view.

Kids can be bad and intend to do harm.

Your response doesn't explain why you are using quotes though.

Bc I wanted to. Is that a good enough answer for you?

 

[Boom Boom]

Unless it's been debunked, I think there is pretty good data showing that more policemen, particularly patrolling policemen, actually do reduce crime. Unfortunately increased funding doesn't necessarily have a strong relationship with increased patrols.

There are people that argue that the US is actually under policed compared to other developed nations, and that is actually a small contributor to why we have higher incarceration rates.

But with replication rates being what they are, I don't know how much stock to put in all the studies regarding policing and violence. It seems like these often involve actually difficult relationships to isolate and determine and would be easy to get wrong even assuming good faith efforts by the authors, which I'm not sure you can just assume.

Saw a stat earlier (sorry, not looking it back up to cite) that said even with a XXX% increase in police budgets in last 40 years, the number of cops is the same.

I think a key point of police reform is more "cops" would be employed (if you define cops to include private traffic enforcement without strict police power and social workers etc), or that "actual" cops would be redistributed to personal and property crime work.

 

[Boom Boom]

You’ve made a couple of comments. No idea if it’s about me and this thread or not but I assure you wanting the police to patrol the neighborhood in question isn’t political for me.

I hope no one gets robbed or harassed whether they are liberal or conservative or middle of the road or just don’t give AF.

I hope no one gets shot for being stupid whether they are black or white or dem or rep.

Yeah, I think a point that's been missed is cops are cops. You send cops in to catch or deter dumb kids out doing pranks, and you run the risk of getting those kids shot. Pain would clearly prefer that outcome, but I don't think the rest of us would.

 

[paindonthurt]

TBH, you haven’t seemed like the biggest police fan. You’ve started 3 anti police threads in the last month. What did Sting ever do to you?

I’m not a fan of liberal mayors/politicians focusing on the wrong things that end up making cities terrible to live in.

Read Malcolm Gladwells talking to strangers. There is a chapter on how to stop crime. It’s gives other great examples to follow that aren’t his.

Of course doing the example he uses is “racist”. Coincidentally enough he says it works and he also seems to be liberal too.

 

[paindonthurt]

This may be a fair point. The couple of things I’ve read have looked at crime relative to overall budgets and not at how those budgets are allocated with respect to boots on the ground. And there’s been a trend of police forces using funding for things like military surplus equipment that looks cool but that doesn’t actually make communities any safer.

See we can agree.

it’s really simple. Spend 80% of your resources where 80% of the crime is. That’s usually in 20% or less of the city map.

most crime happens in less than 20% based on area. In that 20% most of it is on very specific streets.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

This is me when the Vivint guy walks up my drive way and rings the doorbell while screaming, "Anyone home? Hello? I've got some information about protecting your home you might be interested in!"

 

[paindonthurt]

Yeah, I think a point that's been missed is cops are cops. You send cops in to catch or deter dumb kids out doing pranks, and you run the risk of getting those kids shot. Pain would clearly prefer that outcome, but I don't think the rest of us would.

It’s really easy to not get shot by the cops. Really really easy.

step 1 is don’t have a weapon.
Step 2 is don’t resist.

statistics show this

 

[ckDOG]

You are refuting the point that many leftist were for abolishing/definding the police?

All I really need to do is find one or 2 articles to prove they were. If I do that, will you admit that many did?

Many does not mean all or majority.

Twitter isn't real life. Just as many conservatives are wanting the FBI abolished on the internet. Doesn't meant that regular bread and butter voters on either side really support any of that nonsense.

 

[FQDawg]

See we can agree.

it’s really simple. Spend 80% of your resources where 80% of the crime is. That’s usually in 20% or less of the city map.

most crime happens in less than 20% based on area. In that 20% most of it is on very specific streets.

Well, I hate to tell you this but the 20% in Starkville is not in those neighborhoods down South Montgomery. So that might be why you aren’t getting the police presence there that you want.

 

[paindonthurt]

This is the key. Imagine if we didn't have paramedics or firemen. Cops did that too. They all ran around with fire extinguishers and defibrillators, cause there was no one else to call. Fire trucks and ambulances are too specialized, so you get thrown in the back of the cop car if you need a trip to the hospital. That would be as dumb as Paindonthurt.....yet it's basically what we do for traffic enforcement, mental health crises, homelessness, administrative work, etc.

I’ll tell you what boom boom.

ill fly to the testing site of your choice.
I’ll pay for your test.
If your iq is within 10 points of mine I’ll give you an additional $500
If I’m 11 or higher you reimburse for my test and flight.

 

[paindonthurt]

My short take is:

1) There is some parenting gone wrong for the kids to be running around at 4AM.

2) OR, they are sneaking out at night (not that I EVER did that) and the parents don't even know.

3) Regardless of 1) or 2) they really shouldn't just get shot because of this, however, if they continue there is a good chance that they will run across a homeowner who will do just that. Hopefully something will scare them off of this approach before they become a statistic.

3) that’s why maybe the police should do something about it?

or should the neighborhood catch the kids and force them to tell who their parents are then call the parents who probably don’t care.

 

[Boom Boom]

It’s really easy to not get shot by the cops. Really really easy.

step 1 is don’t have a weapon.
Step 2 is don’t resist.

statistics show this

Only an idiot would say this.

 

[ckDOG]

I’ll tell you what boom boom.

ill fly to the testing site of your choice.
I’ll pay for your test.
If your iq is within 10 points of mine I’ll give you an additional $500
If I’m 11 or higher you reimburse for my test and flight.

Oh you know damn well the English portion of the ACT is the official SPS benchmark for intelligence.

 

[mstateglfr]

Bc I wanted to. Is that a good enough answer for you?

I guess. It was a genuine question and your reasoning makes no sense when you consider this is a place to communicate with others, but it's on par for you.
I figured there would be an actual useful reason, one that gave context to the many points you have made so far.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

3) that’s why maybe the police should do something about it?

or should the neighborhood catch the kids and force them to tell who their parents are then call the parents who probably don’t care.

I always got told on and spanked.

 

[paindonthurt]

I guess. It was a genuine question and your reasoning makes no sense when you consider this is a place to communicate with others, but it's on par for you.
I figured there would be an actual useful reason, one that gave context to the many points you have made so far.

My point has been consistent

Cops should focus on the problem
If they don’t it’s gonna get worse
It could eventually cause someone serious harm

Somehow that makes me racist and I want to shoot a kid for ringing a door bell.

 

[Drebin]

This seems like a felony

In California, probably.

 

[M R DAWGS]

What a battle between the squad pirhanas and pdh.

Entertaining to say the least

 

[ronpolk]

I’ll tell you what boom boom.

ill fly to the testing site of your choice.
I’ll pay for your test.
If your iq is within 10 points of mine I’ll give you an additional $500
If I’m 11 or higher you reimburse for my test and flight.

This would be 17n awesome… make it happen boys.

My prediction:

if pain that’s the L, he will claim the person or company that administered the test forged the results and that pain in fact did win and had the highest IQ ever.

if boom boom takes the L, then pain is a racist nazi

 

[M R DAWGS]

Pdh is like an old herd bull moose fighting off a pack of wolves.

 

[Lettucexxxx]

 

[paindonthurt]

This would be 17n awesome… make it happen boys.

My prediction:

if pain that’s the L, he will claim the person or company that administered the test forged the results and that pain in fact did win and had the highest IQ ever.

if boom boom takes the L, then pain is a racist nazi

If boom wins in a legit accredited iq test, I’ll pay him what I said and never comment on his post again.

But we all know standardized tests are racist.

 

[GTAdawg]

Summation of thread:
1). $600k - $1.5M country club estates homeowners are mad because SPD is patrolling S Montgomery for speeding.
2). Said homeowners are mad because some dumb kids play ding ding ditch in the morning, and think SPD doesn’t patrol at night because they watch for speeding during the day.
3). Said homeowners gonna blow buckshot through a locked door at hoodied ding dong ditcher if he’s still standing there.
4). Even being financially affluent can’t buy you common sense.

 

[Boom Boom]

My point has been consistent

Cops should focus on the problem
If they don’t it’s gonna get worse
It could eventually cause someone serious harm

Somehow that makes me racist and I want to shoot a kid for ringing a door bell.

Your first 3 points fit right into the Defund the Police platform.

Your last is just dumbassery. It's not those points that led to that, it was your idiot words about blasting a kid. Digging in on something stupid is not a smart move.

 

[Boom Boom]

If boom wins in a legit accredited iq test, I’ll pay him what I said and never comment on his post again.

But we all know standardized tests are racist.

Don't need your money, and don't care if you spread idiocy under my posts.

Standardized tests aren't racist, people who fantasize about blasting kids in hoodies are racist.

 

[paindonthurt]

Your first 3 points fit right into the Defund the Police platform.

Your last is just dumbassery. It's not those points that led to that, it was your idiot words about blasting a kid. Digging in on something stupid is not a smart move.

I didn’t dig in on you (something stupid).

 

[paindonthurt]

Don't need your money, and don't care if you spread idiocy under my posts.

Standardized tests aren't racist, people who fantasize about blasting kids in hoodies are racist.

So I take it that’s a no you won’t take an IQ test with me?

Can you spell IQ?

 

[mstateglfr]

My point has been consistent

Cops should focus on the problem
If they don’t it’s gonna get worse
It could eventually cause someone serious harm

Somehow that makes me racist and I want to shoot a kid for ringing a door bell.

Consistent?...your points have been all over the place.

You can't possibly be surprised the thread turned into you continually defending your dumb comments about shooting people standing on your door stoop- that level of dumb tends to draw a lot of attention.
Over and over you created multiple scenarios where shooting someone for ringing a doorbell and standing on a porch results in a justified shooting.

You literally claimed that is someone rings your doorbell and is just standing there, when the armed homeowner opens the door, what happens next is on the bell ringer if they are wearing a hoodie.
I mean, that is next level nuts.

And the best one, you describe a scenario where a scared homeowner opens the door and starts blasting, and then you claim that at no point did you say open the door and start blasting.

It would all be hilarious if you weren't serious.

 

[johnson86-1]

Only an idiot would say this.

Not to say that there aren't problems, but that is what the statistics show. I think 2022 was the most in a while and there were under 100 shootings of unarmed people by police. Don't know of anybody that tries to collect statistics on how many of those unarmed were trying to follow directions, but I suspect it was a pretty small fraction of them. Even if you add back some guestimate for cops planting guns after the fact, it's still probably pretty low.

 

[Boom Boom]

Not to say that there aren't problems, but that is what the statistics show. I think 2022 was the most in a while and there were under 100 shootings of unarmed people by police. Don't know of anybody that tries to collect statistics on how many of those unarmed were trying to follow directions, but I suspect it was a pretty small fraction of them. Even if you add back some guestimate for cops planting guns after the fact, it's still probably pretty low.

It improves your chances, not denying in the slightest. But there's too many obvious counterfactuals to just state it will prevent it in all cases no exceptions. Especially in the highly relevant context of kids running around in the dark, probably carrying phones and maybe wearing hoodies. Only an idiot can't account for that.

 

[ChE1997]

If someone rings your bell multiple times at 330 am and your kids are home, it’s fair to go to the door armed.

If you open the door armed and you see a hooded person, what happens to him next is his/her fault. Not yours or mine.

My point has been consistent

Cops should focus on the problem
If they don’t it’s gonna get worse
It could eventually cause someone serious harm

Somehow that makes me racist and I want to shoot a kid for ringing a door bell.

is the problem in the 20% of starkville that they should have 80% of the police patrolling? or is it on south montgomery (i assume in the 80% that you say doesn't "need" as much patrolling)

your only consistent point has been that homeowners should shoot doorbell ringers (and get away with it), because it's the fault of the tech bro on the porch for his outfit

 

[Darryl Steight]

What a battle between the squad pirhanas and pdh.

Entertaining to say the least

 

[dorndawg]

View attachment 358482

While I am certainly flattered you made me the hot one & called me "dorny", I am happily married.

 

[FQDawg]

View attachment 358482

I got a nice laugh out of that. It's quality work.

 

[HotMop]

While I am certainly flattered you made me the hot one & called me "dorny", I am happily married.

The hot one?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Only an idiot would say this.

Only an idiot would refute that.

I honestly can't believe anybody can think things like this. What is the common trait in all these police shootings? It is the alleged criminal getting mad and resisting, or doing something they shouldn't be doing. In every single one. Period.

And we blame the police. Geez. I'd rather have safe streets and just chalk some things up to FAFO. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

I'll say again - brain damage.

 

[Darryl Steight]

While I am certainly flattered you made me the hot one & called me "dorny", I am happily married.

I will admit I probably put too much thought into matching personalities**

 

[dorndawg]

The hot one?

AOC? Yes, I'd think most folks would agree she's very conventionally attractive. It's ok if you don't.