@hoot it is. memphis. camden. on and on. everywhere you have a large population of blacks and blue dem leaders you will have a crime issue. but the dolts scream racism and ignore reality so nothing will ever be done about it.
pick any city with that demo and leadership. it's all the same.
Research from the Illinois Policy Institute found Black and Hispanic Chicagoans made up 95% of the city’s homicide victims during the past 12 months. Black Chicagoans were 20 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide than white residents, while Hispanics were 4.7 times more likely.
C Probert Here is a report concerning large concentrations of black residents with low crime rates. These communities are suburbs with high median incomes, and strong social networks.
IMO these communities are examples of blacks living in a subculture with socioeconomic conditions which result in low crime rates. Admittedly absent from the report is whether the suburbs operate under the mayoral leadership of a dem woke.
C Probert Here is a report concerning large concentrations of black residents with low crime rates. These communities are suburbs with high median incomes, and strong social networks.
IMO these communities are examples of blacks living in a subculture with socioeconomic conditions which result in low crime rates. Admittedly absent from the report is whether the suburbs operate under the mayoral leadership of a dem woke.
If you put a bunch of fatherless teenage males together in an already low income community where there are poor educational outcomes, no jobs, and a feeling of victimization by the system, you're going to get the same result regardless of skin color. Those circumstances are just more prevalent in African American communities.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@hoot socio economic definitely makes a difference. the top five most dangerous cities are almost always the same: memphis, oakland, stl, baltimore, detroit. what you will find is dem leadership and a large black population. as long as they keep electing the same leaders who won't call for accountability and blame everything but culture, even partially, we will never resolve the problem. blacks who get an education. mkae money. become successful. get the F out. move to the burbs. lead lives like every other successful person. i know the wealthiest black man in america, a bit, he's a republican. progressive dems aren't doing anyone any favors other than ensuring their own elections.
Logged into Twitter for the first time in around a week and get this LOL
https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/2053657594427003018
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Honest, upstanding citizens shouldn’t have to foot the bill of incarceration. Criminals should earn their right to re-enter society by “graduating” from penal colonies with little or no supervision. If the colonies become Lord of the Flies barbaric, so be it.
@hurryinghoosiers a 14 year old is a grade schooler. he should be home eating a snack in the kitchen doing homework after being wiped out from baseball practice. not roaming busch stadium parking lots breaking into cars armed with a gun. but you will never hear criticism from lefty city leaders. not about accountability. not about parental responsibility. and guess who is running again. cori bush. god help us. blacks won't learn. and the left won't learn. and the rest of us suffer. we suffer in skipping six flags. we suffer with murders in front of our favorite deli. we suffer at carnivals. the little 500. at baseball games wondering if our car will be there.
say your sorry for how we worry. apologize. you vote for these people. say you're sorry. and mean it.
Dem judges and Liberal white women are destroying our country.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2053924380875587649
https://twitter.com/i/status/2053911931044401481
@hoot socio economic definitely makes a difference. the top five most dangerous cities are almost always the same: memphis, oakland, stl, baltimore, detroit. what you will find is dem leadership and a large black population. as long as they keep electing the same leaders who won't call for accountability and blame everything but culture, even partially, we will never resolve the problem. blacks who get an education. mkae money. become successful. get the F out. move to the burbs. lead lives like every other successful person. i know the wealthiest black man in america, a bit, he's a republican. progressive dems aren't doing anyone any favors other than ensuring their own elections.
Wait. what? You mean there are opportunities out there for all and you have to just have to want it.
@sig yeah for sure but it's definitely harder trying to get out of the hood. i'm a dem at heart believe it or not. we all aren't starting the race at the same spot. it's damn hard for some. dumb. poor. shitty school district. no mentors. on and on. i'm not saying many blacks don't have it harder because they do! it just doesn't excuse the violence.
3. Execution.
Are you (Dems, not you personally) going to finally stand up for capital punishment or continue to cry about it? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the liberal-dominated cities' approach to punishment?
The problem with capital punishment is simply that we are very, very bad at due process and, you know, making sure people are actually guilty. There's nothing inherently wrong with society killing people who should be killed. I'm just really, really appalled by the idea of killing people who were actually innocent. Which we have done far too many times.
That's probably not a purely liberal answer, but whatever. This thread started with a white woman questioning whether it was okay to mourn a white woman because she was white, so I'm not going to get up on a soap box about ideology.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but I think this is an important tangent to discuss.
To me, your perspective above lacks depth. I acknowledge it was purposeful (not trying to engage in a full-fledged debate), but I think this discussion merits a deeper dive.
To your point, it isn't a liberal ideology that innocent people don't deserve to be killed. That being said, look at how far things have gone the other direction over time. It's pretty clear that the pendulum has swung too far.
Start with the old school justice where hangings, shootings, and other public executions were regularly used, alongside other physical punishments (cutting off a finger, etc.). The Enlightenment movement advocates prisons over physical punishment under the guise of proportionality. I think we could reach some consensus, or at least come close to it, on what that should look like. For instance, if a starving 18-year-old steals a loaf of bread and has no prior record, most of us would agree that the sentence shouldn't be to cut off their hand.
From there, we've gone even further with the reformation movement, with many liberals and religious conservatives (starting all the way back with Quakers) pushing for prisoner reform and advocating that circumstances were a cause and treatment (mental and otherwise) can be used to change people. Here again, I think much of the board or political spectrum could reach a quasi-consensus that some prisoners and convicts can be reformed. But circumstances and context are where the legal framework and reality break down.
There are many people who have been convicted of 20+ crimes who continue to be let out on parole, or otherwise, and end up committing murder and other violent crimes. Under no circumstances should someone who continues to commit crimes on a double-digit scale be allowed to roam free in society. Period. This is part of the right's outrage when it comes to cases like Iryna Zarutska, recent Chicago attacks, Seattle assault, etc. These acts aren't being committed by people without a record or risk of societal violence.
Moreover, those who have been convicted by a jury, and even more importantly, those who confessed to violent crimes, should never be allowed out of prison EARLY just because they didn't misbehave in that environment. It's insanity to think that someone in a SuperMax who didn't get into altercations or cause major problems is suddenly worthy of serving a half sentence. Literally, that is an insane, irrational thought to have. The entire premise of sentencing is to punish people for a crime they committed. Who the hell decided that it would be a good idea to reduce the punishment for some of these people? Worse yet, prison reformationists are crying about the conditions of our prisons without giving a care in the world about the people they've taken a life from (I'm including rape and other forms of mental impact, not just physically taking a life) or their families. If you confess to raping and murdering a young girl, why should anyone care about your conditions? Your life should not matter once you have determined such for another innocent person.
The deinstitutionalization movement has flooded society with an increased number of volatile and mentally unstable individuals, not just the homeless population. It is improbable to think that this continued movement (outpatient mental health) is compatible with reformation, yet the proponents are similar, if not the same. It does nothing to deal with the true psychos amongst us, and there is nothing to compel these sick people to get better inside a controlled environment.
All that said, I've long been a proponent of harsher and stricter punishment, including capital punishment. There are a few people who have been executed in recent years who didn't have a long history of being a shitbag. To me, I'd rather a few shitbags get executed for a crime they didn't commit, despite having been long convicted of various other crimes. If that deters even one innocent person from being murdered, society will be better off.
It should also be noted that as evidence and science improve (e.g., technology tracking, DNA testing, video, etc.), the likelihood of false convictions will continue to decline. There have been instrumental gains in the past 20 years.
In summary, both points are true. We have undoubtedly executed people who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. However, we have many more pieces of shit (I cannot think of a better way to describe this group) who are not serving the sentences they deserve.
I would certainly be more comfortable with capital punishment if we reserved it only for repeat offenders. If we execute someone who is technically innocent of the crime in question, but undoubtedly a shitbag who is guilty of many other crimes, then I'm not really put out by that apparent miscarriage of justice at all.
But I wasn't kidding about turning Florida into a penal colony. Transportation solves a lot of these dilemmas. You don't have to kill everyone, but you also have the option to kick them out of society immediately, rather than giving them chance after chance.
3. Execution.
Are you (Dems, not you personally) going to finally stand up for capital punishment or continue to cry about it? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the liberal-dominated cities' approach to punishment?
The problem with capital punishment is simply that we are very, very bad at due process and, you know, making sure people are actually guilty. There's nothing inherently wrong with society killing people who should be killed. I'm just really, really appalled by the idea of killing people who were actually innocent. Which we have done far too many times.
That's probably not a purely liberal answer, but whatever. This thread started with a white woman questioning whether it was okay to mourn a white woman because she was white, so I'm not going to get up on a soap box about ideology.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but I think this is an important tangent to discuss.
To me, your perspective above lacks depth. I acknowledge it was purposeful (not trying to engage in a full-fledged debate), but I think this discussion merits a deeper dive.
To your point, it isn't a liberal ideology that innocent people don't deserve to be killed. That being said, look at how far things have gone the other direction over time. It's pretty clear that the pendulum has swung too far.
Start with the old school justice where hangings, shootings, and other public executions were regularly used, alongside other physical punishments (cutting off a finger, etc.). The Enlightenment movement advocates prisons over physical punishment under the guise of proportionality. I think we could reach some consensus, or at least come close to it, on what that should look like. For instance, if a starving 18-year-old steals a loaf of bread and has no prior record, most of us would agree that the sentence shouldn't be to cut off their hand.
From there, we've gone even further with the reformation movement, with many liberals and religious conservatives (starting all the way back with Quakers) pushing for prisoner reform and advocating that circumstances were a cause and treatment (mental and otherwise) can be used to change people. Here again, I think much of the board or political spectrum could reach a quasi-consensus that some prisoners and convicts can be reformed. But circumstances and context are where the legal framework and reality break down.
There are many people who have been convicted of 20+ crimes who continue to be let out on parole, or otherwise, and end up committing murder and other violent crimes. Under no circumstances should someone who continues to commit crimes on a double-digit scale be allowed to roam free in society. Period. This is part of the right's outrage when it comes to cases like Iryna Zarutska, recent Chicago attacks, Seattle assault, etc. These acts aren't being committed by people without a record or risk of societal violence.
Moreover, those who have been convicted by a jury, and even more importantly, those who confessed to violent crimes, should never be allowed out of prison EARLY just because they didn't misbehave in that environment. It's insanity to think that someone in a SuperMax who didn't get into altercations or cause major problems is suddenly worthy of serving a half sentence. Literally, that is an insane, irrational thought to have. The entire premise of sentencing is to punish people for a crime they committed. Who the hell decided that it would be a good idea to reduce the punishment for some of these people? Worse yet, prison reformationists are crying about the conditions of our prisons without giving a care in the world about the people they've taken a life from (I'm including rape and other forms of mental impact, not just physically taking a life) or their families. If you confess to raping and murdering a young girl, why should anyone care about your conditions? Your life should not matter once you have determined such for another innocent person.
The deinstitutionalization movement has flooded society with an increased number of volatile and mentally unstable individuals, not just the homeless population. It is improbable to think that this continued movement (outpatient mental health) is compatible with reformation, yet the proponents are similar, if not the same. It does nothing to deal with the true psychos amongst us, and there is nothing to compel these sick people to get better inside a controlled environment.
All that said, I've long been a proponent of harsher and stricter punishment, including capital punishment. There are a few people who have been executed in recent years who didn't have a long history of being a shitbag. To me, I'd rather a few shitbags get executed for a crime they didn't commit, despite having been long convicted of various other crimes. If that deters even one innocent person from being murdered, society will be better off.
It should also be noted that as evidence and science improve (e.g., technology tracking, DNA testing, video, etc.), the likelihood of false convictions will continue to decline. There have been instrumental gains in the past 20 years.
In summary, both points are true. We have undoubtedly executed people who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. However, we have many more pieces of shit (I cannot think of a better way to describe this group) who are not serving the sentences they deserve.
I would certainly be more comfortable with capital punishment if we reserved it only for repeat offenders. If we execute someone who is technically innocent of the crime in question, but undoubtedly a shitbag who is guilty of many other crimes, then I'm not really put out by that apparent miscarriage of justice at all.
But I wasn't kidding about turning Florida into a penal colony. Transportation solves a lot of these dilemmas. You don't have to kill everyone, but you also have the option to kick them out of society immediately, rather than giving them chance after chance.
id prefer an island unless you are going to build a massive wall with armed soldiers along the GA border.
this is the shit that infuriates me.
https://twitter.com/UncleCyrus1/status/2053939713661104472
3. Execution.
Are you (Dems, not you personally) going to finally stand up for capital punishment or continue to cry about it? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the liberal-dominated cities' approach to punishment?
The problem with capital punishment is simply that we are very, very bad at due process and, you know, making sure people are actually guilty. There's nothing inherently wrong with society killing people who should be killed. I'm just really, really appalled by the idea of killing people who were actually innocent. Which we have done far too many times.
That's probably not a purely liberal answer, but whatever. This thread started with a white woman questioning whether it was okay to mourn a white woman because she was white, so I'm not going to get up on a soap box about ideology.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but I think this is an important tangent to discuss.
To me, your perspective above lacks depth. I acknowledge it was purposeful (not trying to engage in a full-fledged debate), but I think this discussion merits a deeper dive.
To your point, it isn't a liberal ideology that innocent people don't deserve to be killed. That being said, look at how far things have gone the other direction over time. It's pretty clear that the pendulum has swung too far.
Start with the old school justice where hangings, shootings, and other public executions were regularly used, alongside other physical punishments (cutting off a finger, etc.). The Enlightenment movement advocates prisons over physical punishment under the guise of proportionality. I think we could reach some consensus, or at least come close to it, on what that should look like. For instance, if a starving 18-year-old steals a loaf of bread and has no prior record, most of us would agree that the sentence shouldn't be to cut off their hand.
From there, we've gone even further with the reformation movement, with many liberals and religious conservatives (starting all the way back with Quakers) pushing for prisoner reform and advocating that circumstances were a cause and treatment (mental and otherwise) can be used to change people. Here again, I think much of the board or political spectrum could reach a quasi-consensus that some prisoners and convicts can be reformed. But circumstances and context are where the legal framework and reality break down.
There are many people who have been convicted of 20+ crimes who continue to be let out on parole, or otherwise, and end up committing murder and other violent crimes. Under no circumstances should someone who continues to commit crimes on a double-digit scale be allowed to roam free in society. Period. This is part of the right's outrage when it comes to cases like Iryna Zarutska, recent Chicago attacks, Seattle assault, etc. These acts aren't being committed by people without a record or risk of societal violence.
Moreover, those who have been convicted by a jury, and even more importantly, those who confessed to violent crimes, should never be allowed out of prison EARLY just because they didn't misbehave in that environment. It's insanity to think that someone in a SuperMax who didn't get into altercations or cause major problems is suddenly worthy of serving a half sentence. Literally, that is an insane, irrational thought to have. The entire premise of sentencing is to punish people for a crime they committed. Who the hell decided that it would be a good idea to reduce the punishment for some of these people? Worse yet, prison reformationists are crying about the conditions of our prisons without giving a care in the world about the people they've taken a life from (I'm including rape and other forms of mental impact, not just physically taking a life) or their families. If you confess to raping and murdering a young girl, why should anyone care about your conditions? Your life should not matter once you have determined such for another innocent person.
The deinstitutionalization movement has flooded society with an increased number of volatile and mentally unstable individuals, not just the homeless population. It is improbable to think that this continued movement (outpatient mental health) is compatible with reformation, yet the proponents are similar, if not the same. It does nothing to deal with the true psychos amongst us, and there is nothing to compel these sick people to get better inside a controlled environment.
All that said, I've long been a proponent of harsher and stricter punishment, including capital punishment. There are a few people who have been executed in recent years who didn't have a long history of being a shitbag. To me, I'd rather a few shitbags get executed for a crime they didn't commit, despite having been long convicted of various other crimes. If that deters even one innocent person from being murdered, society will be better off.
It should also be noted that as evidence and science improve (e.g., technology tracking, DNA testing, video, etc.), the likelihood of false convictions will continue to decline. There have been instrumental gains in the past 20 years.
In summary, both points are true. We have undoubtedly executed people who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. However, we have many more pieces of shit (I cannot think of a better way to describe this group) who are not serving the sentences they deserve.
I would certainly be more comfortable with capital punishment if we reserved it only for repeat offenders. If we execute someone who is technically innocent of the crime in question, but undoubtedly a shitbag who is guilty of many other crimes, then I'm not really put out by that apparent miscarriage of justice at all.
But I wasn't kidding about turning Florida into a penal colony. Transportation solves a lot of these dilemmas. You don't have to kill everyone, but you also have the option to kick them out of society immediately, rather than giving them chance after chance.
id prefer an island unless you are going to build a massive wall with armed soldiers along the GA border.
this is the shit that infuriates me.
https://twitter.com/UncleCyrus1/status/2053939713661104472
Just not sure there are any islands available big enough. Probably gonna have to build that wall.
I suppose we could kick out all the Aleuts and ship the prisoners to Alaska. We won't need as much space then, because they won't last as long.
@unclemark @arthur-dent wtf is this about? https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/2053944099967840458