OT ACAB All Cops Are Bastards (yes EVERY one)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
yankeesince59 said:
"Legit data"?...lol...some folks can't find stuff because they don't really try.

Camden, Trenton and Paterson make top 100 list of most dangerous cities

https://bronx.news12.com/camden-trenton-and-paterson-make-top-100-list-of-most-dangerous-cities#


https://nj1015.com/3-cities-in-nj-among-the-most-dangerous-in-the-u-s/




But I wouldn't be surprised that someone who cited wiki as legit, will claim this isn't legit data.
Click to expand...
It appears both of those websites are referencing the same list on the same blog.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous

That list doesn't put Camden in the top 14 either. That's showing top 34.

Showing safer than cities like
Kansas City, MO
Little Rock, AR
Cleveland, OH
Milwaukee, WI

That's according to your list. Using that website's own algorithm to determine how likely a person is to become a victim.

And I didn't claim Wikipedia as legit. I simply said I wasn't finding legit sources that backed up your claim, which was based on an image, not a link. And it doesn't appear you were able to either, considering the link you finally did share.

Wikipedia's sources for that list are listed at that link, and they are verifiable. It's just not as easy to read.
 
Last edited:
yankeesince59 said:
So a very small percentage of bad cops = ACAB ?....Cool stance.
Click to expand...

Didn't you post this?

yankeesince59 said:
One more time...good cops, the everyday cops who are out there in the cesspool of some of our society, don't have the authority to discipline other cops acting badly, so all they can do if they are brave enough, is to report them to their superiors.

Considering good cops who were considered as "rats" for doing this by most of their peers, have ruined their careers and even killed for doing so, I for one can understand their apprehension.... If we want to make change, we need to start at the top, not the bottom.
Click to expand...

If it were only a small percentage what would the good cops have to be afraid of?
 
BlazerBender said:
Only stats and numbers I post are legit. Anything else is not a legit source!!!!
I know everything and you know nothing!!!!

Sadly…this problem will never get solved….
Click to expand...

^^^Thank you, again !

The battle over whose link's are more/less credible/subjective...most everyone is guilty of it at times...I know I am.

There's not much that can be debated that can't be shown with opposing/contrary links.
 
yankeesince59 said:
^^^Thank you, again !

The battle over whose link's are more/less credible/subjective...most everyone is guilty of it at times...I know I am.

There's not much that can be debated that can't be shown with opposing/contrary links.
Click to expand...
The point of legitimate links which references sources is to show a person's perspective.

If a person is simply spewing propaganda from memes and images it becomes very obvious very quickly.

If a person can supply links with sources it provides everyone in the debate with an opportunity to study the same data and engage in more educated dialogue.

A person unwilling to do this can be viewed as a less serious participant.
 
lol... here we go again with the same ole "I didn't mean what I said" crap.

...the Camden experiment was clearly cited and staunchly recommended several times as a "model" for other cities to. follow

...doesn't seem to be much of a model, because I don't see other cities following suit.
 
Last edited:
yankeesince59 said:
...the Camden experiment was clearly cited and staunchly recommended several times as a "model" for other cities to. follow

...doesn't to be much of a model, because I don't see other cities following suit. And I only see one person disputing my links...hmmmm, maybe the problem lies with them.
Click to expand...
You may be misremembering. I suggested Camden as an example of a model to follow, pointing out that cities who have problems with abusive police should be following it, and more specifically trying to emulate the The German/Nordic/Scandinavian police and judicial systems which focus on education and rehabilitation rather than restitution and oppression.

What the links we've all shared (thank you) have shown is that the Camden model is a fantastic way to improve on an inept and/or abusive/corrupt police force in the USA, but that it takes the people involved on both sides to focus on the data rather than the politics. I would guess this is why more cities in the US aren't doing it.

My position is that, if done well, this will get you about the lowest crime rate you can expect (from a police force) without universal access to education, healthcare, and a vastly expanded and revamped social safety net.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
And there we have it, just as I predicted. "I didn't mean what I said".......And no, I didn't "misremember" anything.

Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 10.58.13 AM.png Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 11.08.13 AM.png Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 11.09.33 AM.png



I'm sure there's plenty more...upon request.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 10.58.13 AM.png
    Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 10.58.13 AM.png
    156.9 KB · Views: 71
  • Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 11.08.13 AM.png
    Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 11.08.13 AM.png
    80.4 KB · Views: 69
  • Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 11.09.33 AM.png
    Screenshot 2023-08-16 at 11.09.33 AM.png
    291.1 KB · Views: 72
yankeesince59 said:
lol... here we go again with the same ole "I didn't mean what I said" crap.

...the Camden experiment was clearly cited and staunchly recommended several times as a "model" for other cities to. follow

...doesn't seem to be much of a model, because I don't see other cities following suit.
Click to expand...
But there was never a claim they ARE flocking to it. Just that they SHOULD.
 
RR7 said:
But there was never a claim they ARE flocking to it. Just that they SHOULD.
Click to expand...
And to be clear, the question was why aren't more cities flocking to Camden's "model",... not to the city

Again if this "model" is such a great idea, why, for the umpteenth time, aren't more cities adopting it?...that's the point.
 
Last edited:
My goodness...that was directed at another poster, hence the "quote"...and it has been edited.

Hmmm...can't find "the answer". Where is it?
 
Last edited:
yankeesince59 said:
And to be clear, the question was why aren't more cities flocking to Camden's "model",... not to the city

Again if this "model" is such a great idea, why, for the umpteenth time, aren't more cities adopting it?...that's the point.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry dude--the whole "if other (entities) aren't doing ____, then it must not be a good/viable idea" is a really weak logical position.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm sorry dude--the whole "if other (entities) aren't doing ____, then it must not be a good/viable idea" is a really weak logical position.
Click to expand...

No, it's a legit question and my logical position is not weak at all...it's been 10 freaking years and what other cities have done the same thing Camden did?... which is to bum 6 times their own revenue from the state. After abolishing their police department they hired and rehired more than twice as many cops as they had before. And most of the cops were white and likely very few even lived with the city of Camden.

Yeah, let's that's just throw state funded money or money in general at the problem...great idea. The other poster I'm sure knows the drawbacks but refuses to admit it.
 
yankeesince59 said:
No, it's a legit question and my logical position is not weak at all...it's been 10 freaking years and what other cities have done the same thing Camden did?...
Click to expand...

I've already answered this.
Phatguysrule said:
... it takes the people involved on both sides to focus on the data rather than the politics. I would guess this is why more cities in the US aren't doing it.
Click to expand...

yankeesince59 said:
which is to bum 6 times their own revenue from the state. After abolishing their police department they hired and rehired more than twice as many cops as they had before. And most of the cops were white and likely very few even lived with the city of Camden.
Click to expand...
I don't care if there are more cops, as long as people aren't being oppressed (as is happening far less often in Camden) and it's more effective when compared to before (as it very clearly is).

The poorest among us are more expensive for services. It is our government's responsibility to provide these poor areas with safe travel and trade as well.

That's why it's in all of our best interest to help them not be poor.

yankeesince59 said:
Yeah, let's that's just throw state funded money or money in general at the problem...great idea. The other poster I'm sure knows the drawbacks but refuses to admit it.
Click to expand...
If that's all that you think has happened in Camden (or the German/Nordic models that have proven to be far superior to here in the US, (and that Camden appears to be trying to emulate) then you don't have a full understanding of the situation.

I would recommend reading back through (and listening to) the links that have been shared in this thread to gain a better understanding.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, right. You cannot correlate Camden and Scandinavian cultures...that's inane.

Camden is a "model" that is evidently not desirable/practical for most other US cities for various reasons...I think Camden was a "perfect storm" scenario, and without state government cheese, it likely would have never happened.

IMO, Throwing money at a problem is not a long term solution, and most government implemented programs are destined for failure. Instead, I think there has got to be a way to somehow unite the actual residents, starting first with individual neighborhoods, and then towns/cities in other places with a plight like Camden, and structure things that may enable them be able to gradually take their own neighborhoods back...one burrow at a time.

Sorry but I think that the less we rely on government/money to solve our own problems, the better. ... "That government which governs least, governs best."
 
yankeesince59 said:
Yeah, right.

It's a "model" that is evidently not desirable/practical for most other US cities for various reasons...I think Camden was a "perfect storm" scenario, and without state government cheese, it likely would have never happened.

IMO, Throwing money at a problem is not a long term solution, and most government implemented programs are destined for failure. Instead, I think there has got to be a way to somehow unite the actual residents, starting first with individual neighborhoods, and then towns/cities in other places with a plight like Camden, and structure things that may enable them be able to gradually take their own neighborhoods back...one burrow at a time.

Sorry but I think that the less we rely on government/money to solve our own problems, the better. ... "That government which governs least, governs best."
Click to expand...
Yeah, that has literally never worked. Anywhere. Ever.

That's straight out of the long debunked trickle down economics line of thinking that Republicans sold to the masses to get their constituents to vote against their own best interests.

Unfortunately it worked, and that kind of logic is what causes most of our big problems today.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, right?
 
I would agree but that would literally make me wrong.

And long term, I have better faith in bootstraps than the Camden model.
 
yankeesince59 said:
I would agree but that would literally make me wrong.

And long term, I have better faith in bootstraps than the Camden model.
Click to expand...
Pulling oneself up by their bootstraps is a literal impossibility. It was coined as a term of impossibility. The definition of an exercise in futility. Ironic that the corporate overlords ran with it and sold their followers on it... because of course, it's in the best interest of the elite to play their subjects against one another.

And you're proud to choose that over a proven solution that has reduced crime by 70% in a US city, for over a decade...

 
lol...more semantics?

...might wanna learn the difference between "literally and "figuratively". I wasn't the one who brought the phrase into this thread and then decided to play word games with it.

Well of course "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps"a physical impossibility if you want to dissect it literally. (again, that wasn't me) It is a phrase that means "to improve your situation by your own efforts, without help from anyone else" and that was obviously my point.

Here, want some more examples of phrases/idioms that are literal impossibilities; "when pigs have wings", ..."When Hell freezes over"..."Rain cats and dogs"...etc.


Go and play with them for a while and then if desired, resort to more grammatical gymnastics, or better yet, ...stick to the actual point of the thread.
 
yankeesince59 said:
lol...more semantics?

...might wanna learn the difference between "literally and "figuratively". I wasn't the one who brought the phrase into this thread and then decided to play word games with it.

Well of course "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps"a physical impossibility if you want to dissect it literally. (again, that wasn't me) It is a phrase that means "to improve your situation by your own efforts, without help from anyone else" and that was obviously my point.

Here, want some more examples of phrases/idioms that are literal impossibilities; "when pigs have wings", ..."When Hell freezes over"..."Rain cats and dogs"...etc.


Go and play with them for a while and then if desired, resort to more grammatical gymnastics, or better yet, ...stick to the actual point of the thread.
Click to expand...
Lol

giphy.webp
 
Great retort...no dispute of what I said, just more comics...how compelling.

And Camden has not reduced overall crime by "70%" over the last decade...nice try.
 
yankeesince59 said:
Great retort...no dispute of what I said, just more comics...how compelling.

And Camden has not reduced overall crime by "70%" over the last decade...nice try.
Click to expand...

You've been brainwashed into believing things that can't work are good courses of action.

You've literally argued for the same thing that doesn't work instead of a huge reduction in crime and a huge reduction in police abuses. And you're proud of that.

It's comedy. Or it would be, if it weren't so sad.
 
So you admit your inflated numbers were wrong, right?

I have never said or implied that Camden's actions didn't help in some types of crime, only that the "model" is not agreeable or practical for most other cities and there are valid reasons why, and I'm sure you are aware of this but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them and admit it.

Has Camden improved?...yes, to a degree in some areas, but still "has miles to go", even they admit that. Camden was so bad originally that it couldn't get much worse, so the only way to go was up. More than doubling the size of its police force is the answer for Camden and other cities?...no, I don't believe that's the answer. Hell, some crimes have flat lined recently and some have even increased recently, and I'm sure you also know that.

Camden is still a miserable shit hole.
 
yankeesince59 said:
So you admit your inflated numbers were wrong, right?

I have never said or implied that Camden's actions didn't help in some types of crime, only that the "model" is not agreeable or practical for most other cities and there are valid reasons why, and I'm sure you are aware of this but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them and admit it.

Has Camden improved?...yes, to a degree in some areas, but still "has miles to go", even they admit that. Camden was so bad originally that it couldn't get much worse, so the only way to go was up. More than doubling the size of its police force is the answer for Camden and other cities?...no, I don't believe that's the answer. Hell, some crimes have flat lined recently and some have even increased recently, and I'm sure you also know that.

Camden is still a miserable shit hole.
Click to expand...
My apologies. Only a 70% reduction in homicides...

Places with high poverty rates are going to be shit holes. That's how it works.

No police force in the world can solve that. They can only hope to help without causing more problems than they solve.

The old model was very obviously far less helpful than than the new model.

If bootstraps is your solution, well that sounds a lot like you should support defunding the police in general. After all, government that governs less governs best...
 
lol...still hung up on "boot straps"?...and still can't grasp the difference of what it signifies between "literally" and "figuratively"? ...Again, I wasn't the one who interjected that phrase into this thread, and I wasn't the one who arbitrarily decided to take in a literal" sense.

And no, I'm not for "defunding the police" either, all I said about the police was that simply throwing money at the problem is not a viable long term solution. But Camden bummed 6 times their own budget from the state of New Jersey in order to hire and rehire cops/"bastards" that resulted in having more than doubling the number of cops than they had before.

Try going back and reread what I said and fully digest it instead of making things up by trying to translate my words into yours.

#918
 
yankeesince59 said:
lol...still hung up on "boot straps"?...and still can't grasp the difference of what it signifies between "literally" and "figuratively"? ...Again, I wasn't the one who interjected that phrase into this thread, and I wasn't the one who arbitrarily decided to take in a literal" sense.

And no, I'm not for "defunding the police" either, all I said about the police was that simply throwing money at the problem is not a viable long term solution. But Camden bummed 6 times their own budget from the state of New Jersey in order to hire and rehire cops/"bastards" that resulted in having more than doubling the number of cops than they had before.

Try going back and reread what I said and fully digest it instead of making things up by translating my words into yours.

#918
Click to expand...
Maybe you're catching on then.

Nobody is suggesting "simply throwing money" at anything.

We have a solution that has been proven to work in other countries as well as in the US.

You're blasting it because it wasn't better enough, even though they saw homicide rates decline 70% from the "less government" model.

And you're blasting it without suggesting an alternative.

Hard to take it seriously.
 
"catching on"?...please.

But throwing money at the problem is exactly what Camden did...they used money to more than double the "bastard cops" they had before.

And I did suggest an alternative..."local activism", the locals need to come together and actually interact with their neighbors and actually take stock in their community. Yeah, it may take a while but it might well be worth it, better than living in a police state.

...IMO, "salvation lies within" and not with the police. (hence "That government which governs least, governs best")...Again, go back and read.
#918
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top