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.
Didn't you post this? If it were only a small percentage what would the good cops have to be afraid of?
^^^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.
...lol...I was asked to provide links, and I did but only one link was disputed...how odd. https://nj1015.com/3-cities-in-nj-among-the-most-dangerous-in-the-u-s/ And evidently sarcasm completely escapes some people. Still waiting for the list of cities who are flocking to adopt Camden's "model"
Wait, when was your link disputed? I examined it and gave feedback on it. Who claimed any cities were flocking to anything?
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.
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.
And there we have it, just as I predicted. "I didn't mean what I said".......And no, I didn't "misremember" anything. I'm sure there's plenty more...upon request.
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.
I already answered that question. And no, it's not semantics at all. "Should" and "are" are completely different words with completely different definitions.
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?
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.
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.
I've already answered this. 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. 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.
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."
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.
