lucascorso21 t1_je5qunl wrote on March 29, 2023 at 4:38 PM

Reply to comment by QuidProJoe2020 in Amen Brown has survived another ballot challenge. But the judge also cited ‘serious concerns’ about his financial disclosures. by ADFC

I used to work at Ft McNair in DC and they had a shuttle that went to a metro station. We were told during orientation to take the shuttle and not walk to the metro because uniformed soldiers were being robbed at gunpoint.

There is no evidence that a national guard deployment would do anything besides put heavily armed young adults in a situation which they are not trained for.

QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5sxpa wrote on March 29, 2023 at 4:51 PM

Lol there's decades of studies otherwise. I suppose all social studies that show a strong link of police presence and less crime is just fake news.

People really are wild to think more police presence doesn't deter crime. Idk what world you inhibit where you don't understand that connection.

Just think of it like this: If the PPD literally said there was an area in the city where no cops would be and no patrol would go, do you think that would make that area safer or more dangerous?

Also, I said it's worth to TRY. Right now 500 dead is what we are on trend for. I suppose we do nothing in the short term because you don't think criminals get deterred from crimes by police, despite decades of research otherwise.

lucascorso21 t1_je5teru wrote on March 29, 2023 at 4:54 PM

I'm sorry - do you think national guard = police?

QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5v1eu wrote on March 29, 2023 at 5:05 PM

I think guys with guns in army fatigues will stop the pieces of shit from doing crimes in their presence to a good degree. At least worth the try as more citizens have been murdered in the last three years in Philly than a 3 yesr perood EVER BEFORE.

Idk maybe criminals look forward to getting shot up by army men, but I'm going to assume they will react similarly to when police are there, as they face the same outcomes of a cop being there: a bullet or an arrest.

No where did I say this will definitely work, but the question is why shit on something new to try when we literally have never had homicides this high?

The only person that can moral grandstand on new ideas with a retort of: let's try something that takes years, is someone who doesn't feel crime.

I care about outcomes, and everything someone has responded with is a solution that takes years. So in the meantime, we should just tell citizens: 500 of yall have to die yearly but please hold on we are working on it! Naa I refuse to think that's appropriate

lucascorso21 t1_je5ysxj wrote on March 29, 2023 at 5:28 PM

Got it, so you're just throwing ideas out there without understanding what the guard is actually capable of doing (which is not community policing), how that would work legally and operationally, and if that would make things better or worse.

I'm all about solving this plague of violence. But if you don't understand what you are actually proposing, maybe you shouldn't say it?

QuidProJoe2020 t1_je60lut wrote on March 29, 2023 at 5:39 PM

What I am advocating is trying something immediate to save lives. Maybe it works and then holy shit we have more living philadelphians, or maybe it fails and we are in the same exact boat.

If you want to say this idea can fail, I agree. What we are doing now is failing.

You're looking at a huge hole in the ship and I'm saying let's try to patch it with this, and you're response is: what if the ship continues to sink. That is literally what we are dealing with now.

We can do more than one thing at a time. While we work on long term reforms, we can do things in the immediate to try and give citizens of this great city a respite.

I just will never agree with thinking that letting 500+ of my fellow citizens die is more acceptable than trying something during THE DEADLIEST TIME EVER IN CITY HISTORY.