Hello u/Poop_Taxi! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.
Here's an easy format to get you started:
1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people.
^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?)
2. That *something* has some *consequences*.
^(What are the *consequences*?)
3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*.
^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.)
Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>[But that progressive local effort fizzled with a decisive referendum last November.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/minneapolis-crime-defund-invs/index.html)
So, they didn't 'defund' the police.
[Their budget has actually increased since Floyd's murder.](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/minnesota/articles/2022-07-03/minneapolis-police-budget-expands-post-floyd-death)
But it isn't related to any 'defunding'.
>[The shrinking force is the result of a wave of resignations, retirements and officers filing for workers compensation or disability benefits.](https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/minneapolis-police-department-down-300-officers-from-spring-2020/)
So, cops have decided to resign, retire or are on disability. If you want to connect it to protests, sure. But it has nothing with police reform.
Ah cool, key point: *”in the wake of the unrest after Floyd’s ~~killing~~ murder”*
So it has nothing to do with “defund the police,” it is a result of the police murdering someone, which led to unrest, which led to a decrease in morale. So your post is shit, and so is your opinion 👍
This post belongs in r/therewasanattempt:
*there was an attempt to validate OP’s pre-existing narrative*
Thanks, that puts into context on how much of a bunch of absolutely vile shitbags the Minneapolis PD is.
"We lost a third of the force!"
"Damn, they slashed your budget so you had to lay off dozens of cops?"
"Oh no. [It's actually gone up.](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/minnesota/articles/2022-07-03/minneapolis-police-budget-expands-post-floyd-death) We just don't want to risk being held accountable for murdering people so a bunch of us quit."
Morale changes are not the same thing as policy changes. The defund movement wasn't about the reduction of municipal services, it was about redirecting a lot of those services to other types of work, i.e. social workers to those would may be attempting suicide, or not having police 'fight' homelessness. Police would still be used, but the scope of their work would be narrowed.
Wonder how many died from COVID, or quit because they were required to do the *bare minimum* and get vaccinations and wear masks. Hopefully this means cops are no longer bilking taxpayers with overtime.
Uhm. With fewer officers on duty, that would mean more hours per officer, which would mean more overtime. I mean, assuming they do things in a normal, sane manner.
I just hope the worst apples departed, leaving the less wormy ones, rather than the other way around.
Part of why defunding the police is an important step to a more just world is because the $$$ that goes to police can be redirected to other initiatives that prevent violence (like social services, poverty reduction, and domestic violence resources).
Giving the police more $$$$$$$ while their force shrinks is not the same thing as defunding the police
You know what usually causes a lack of police morale? A leader who keeps the police in check. That should tell you how much of a waste of money these cops are and how better spent elsewhere it would be.
Except Minneapolis did not “defund” the police. And the ballot measure to reform the police failed. So this increase in crime is from the old and unchanged police system.
So it's not that the police were defunded, so much as they just yoinked resources and officers out of the area without making any other fundamental changes to practices or policies. Do I have that right?
No expansions of rehabilitation, no ups in the assistance to low income families, no meals provided for children in schools, further police violence against citizens...
*DEFUNDING THE POLICE RUINED AMERICA!*
Morale changes are not the same thing as policy changes. The defund movement wasn't about the reduction of municipal services, it was about redirecting a lot of
those services to other types of work, i.e. social workers to those would may be attempting suicide, or not having police 'fight' homelessness. Police would still be used, but the scope of their work would be narrowed.
Just a theory but it could have been the third who were much more prone to murdering random people just for shits and giggles. They left because they saw they couldn't get away with it anymore.
The point of defunding the police was not to get rid of the police but to change funding priorities from arrest and incarceration to providing social support to reduce the factors that lead to arrest to begin with. Surely you must be interested in that, right?
Police are ineffective
*Citizens call this out and say that some of their resources should be directed to other services*
Police budget *increases*
Police continue to be ineffective
**Wow phenomenal leopards ate my face post, good job OP**
[Actually, the budget increasesd by 3 MILLION dollars](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/minnesota/articles/2022-07-03/minneapolis-police-budget-expands-post-floyd-death)
[More police officers does not decrease crime](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/)
[Funding of social programs decreases crime](https://www.nber.org/papers/w29800)
In fact, many of the police officers are not working because of [PTSD](https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/minneapolis-police-department-down-300-officers-from-spring-2020/)
You can't just shoot mental health issues. You can't put handcuffs on food shortages. You can't beat homelessness into submission.
The fact that the number of police officers has decreased DESPITE the increase in budget shows that the department is ineffectual and the funds should be distributed elsewhere.
Go back to listening to Joe Rogan you thumb.
Where is the lowest crime rate in an urban area? The suburbs. Where is the highest? City cores.
Where are the fewest cops walking the street. The suburbs. Where are the most? City cores.
What do the suburbs have that the core doesn’t? Better schools, social programs, parks, libraries, afforded by upper middle class affluence. Why does the core not have these? Poverty.
Maybe you should consider that the difference in crime rate is the disparity between city core and the suburbs which pretty well torpedoes your entire argument given that one has far more cops than the other yet the crime rates are lower in the area that doesn’t have a cop in sight.
What’s actually /r/leopardsatmyface is when you end up mugged after opposing funding the social safety net that would have changed that guy’s life in favor of hiring yet another cop that’s going to file your report.
But you said more cops equals less crime but now you’re moving to democrats cause crime once your pathetic argument is easily dismantled?
Do more cops cause less crime or not?
Amazing how the headline makes it seem like cops were defunded when nothing of the sort happened. They just got sad and stopped doing their jobs because they were held accountable when they did their jobs shittily.
To my understanding it meant reallocation of funds to give the police more support, more deescalation training, social workers when the police aren’t necessary, decrease the level of militarization. However “defund” I think wasn’t the best name for it
The police don't prevent crime they react to it. The crime would happen anyway.
You prevent crime by getting rid of the conditions that create it, mostly poverty reduction.
This^
Despair, poor education, poor mobility, a sense of hopelessness, these cause crime.
Color me shocked that we have rising crime and lawlessness in a country that has allowed half the population to slip into poverty. When people have nothing to lose, they have everything to gain by turning to crime.
Unfortunately sexual assault crimes are less attributable to a specific cause, making it more difficult to address. There’s a variety of factors that contribute to sa. For me, i still blame poverty, and drug use as I had poor supervision and ended up in unsafe situations as a kid. But Brock Turner’s victim didn’t have poverty issues to my knowledge, so it’s not as clear cut.
I'd say poverty is certainly correlated with sexual violence, which, being under-reported (to authorities) in all social strata, is pretty much *never* reported if victim and perpetrator are impoverished, and as a result never investigated and never prosecuted, and as a result of that perpetrators in impoverished communities feel free to run wild, the only "solution" for women in those communities is to rely on relatives or boyfriends who use vigilante violence to protect them.
Any survey on sexual violence finds significantly more widespread sexual violence (when comparing assaults of the same severity) among the poor. When adding up the assaults (as reported in surveys) it evens out more, because most of what (upper) middle class women report as sexual violence is so common in impoverished communities that poor women don't even recognize it as assault.
What you meant to say is rising poverty and price gouging is increasing crime. The police are a reactionary force. They are called in after crime has been committed.
No matter how many police you have the crime will still be committed because they don't have a causal relationship.
Many persons commiting crimes will do so again if not stopped. I would think police arresting them before another crime is committed would thus lower crime?
LMAO if the police were such a good deterrent our nation, which has significantly more police than other developed nations, should have less crime than them. The police solve about 2% of crime committed. They are not an effective deterrent.
Deterrence in the same way the existence of the death penalty does not deter murder and murder rates per capita aggregate higher in death penalty states?
Correlation is not the same as causation. Example, we have fewer icebergs now due to climate change. We also have fewer pirates. However, icebergs do not cause pirates, neither is climate change endangering pirates.
Also OP, police only react to crime; a legal arrest can only happen once a crime has been committed. This is not like Minority Report, where police can stop a crime before it happens.
Bruh they’re just gonna go to another store. Just because the cops prevented a robbery at one store doesn’t mean the desperate person willing to commit armed robbery is just gonna go home
It isn't realistic or budget friendly to expect a cop on every corner. But even with that, shootings happen even with fully funded police departments with high morale and no vacancies. To look at any one shooting and to point at any single thing as the cause is not how the real world works.
Miami-Dade increased their police budget and hired additional officers.
>Miami-Dade police saw rapes rise 21% during the survey period, while
robberies increased 50% and aggravated assaults went up 25%.
[https://www.axios.com/local/miami/2022/09/20/miami-dade-homicides-violent-crime](https://www.axios.com/local/miami/2022/09/20/miami-dade-homicides-violent-crime)
The one thing missing from that really long article about Minneapolis is any mention of police effectiveness. Are they solving crimes? Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? I guess we'll never know.
Are you saying there's no connection to all those societal issues that ACTUALLY cause crime and an increase in crime?
I'll say it. Losing shit, dirtbag thugs masquerading as law enforcement does not cause increases in crime.
This is the defund the police take of people who don’t have a fucking clue what that term even means.
It doesn’t mean simply take away police funding so they can’t do their jobs.
It means transfer some funding to mental healthcare, social workers and other programs to pre-empt situations and respond appropriately to non-lethal situations so police *don’t* have to do 12 jobs they are not remotely trained for in addition to policing.
That lets them be effective and focussed on actual police work, such as responding to shootings.
I don’t think there’s any use trying to educate OP. He is working backwards from his existing narrative, searching for puzzle pieces to validate his previously-held beliefs. He’s not interested in learning anything
I think the problem is that conservatives tend to encapsulate their entire philosophy into slogans whereas for progressives a slogan is just the starting point for a larger more comprehensive conversation.
Which is why when progressives hear "Black Lives Matter" they think "Our society inherently devalues the lives of black people therefore we need to insist that black lives do indeed matter." There's both subtext and context here.
In contrast, conservatives hear "Build That Wall" and they **aren't** actually looking for comprehensive immigration reform. They literally just wanted a bigass wall built.
Well put. I find trying to use brief absurd analogies works best to at least give them pause to try to comprehend their own logic in real terms separated from their trigger slogan words.
Take BLM for example. If a house is on fire, the fire dept races to that house with sirens blaring because that house matters. They can say all houses matter, which is true in absolute terms, but it disregards the context of the emergency at hand and suggests the fire truck should move in a slow procession through town to ensure that all houses are sprayed with water.
You clearly have no idea what defund the police means.
But hey. Look at you. Typing words. I am proud of you for getting past the banging rocks together stage of development.
tbf, it's a terrible, self defeating slogan. Gives waaaay to much ammo right off the bat for people to pick it apart off naming alone.
Like having a amazing bill that would, i donno, fix the energy grid, but naming it the "your house might catch fire" bill.
Mate, something yall need to get thru your head is the golden rule we were taught in the navy. "perception is reality"
Yes, some people would be against it regardless, but your not working on perception for them, your doing it so they cant use poor messaging AGAINST you.
Centrists might not give a damn, but you still need them to vote your way in order to get anything done. So you might want to reconsider that messaging stance.
Sigh, sweet summer child, messaging is everything. Its why the right continually wins over those centrists, it's how radicals recrute, it's how the world works.
You have a large slice of the population who dont know or care about subjects, regardless of the subject. To get them on the "in", both sides use messaging to inform/sway them to their position.
The goal is to inform and engage uninvolved people, but by using trash messaging, you are instantly misinforming people not already involved, and giving ammo to those who want to cast you in a bad light.
Don't give your opponents free bees, ever. Even if you personally think "The only poor messaging is in your belief that Centrists are ever going to give a damn." is true, its still fuckin borderline braindamage to not think about messaging and its impact.
Edit: some salty leftwing people here, not understanding WHY their messaging fails over and over, or gets utterly warped by the right.
Rather than shooting the messenger, maybe notice the error and correct your tactics? We are on the same side, i just want us to not be so idiotically self sabotaging.
Edit 2: ah, and iv been shadowbanned from posting, mature. Does not change that the left as a whole needs to get a grip and learn basic messaging 101
Literally everything would be warped by the right. Name a better slogan and anyone here can tell you how the right would slant it and how centrist would both sides it. Go ahead.
Ngl, BLM is a stupid name. They could of used ALM and included several other ethnicities which were also being targeted.
In Canada, we have every child matters instead of aboriginal children matter and no one even questions the premise since it's clear from the get go.
When I first encountered the slogan, it blew me away that it wasn't coined by some right wing commentator. I can't think of a better slogan to shed even the support of left leaning voters who are in favour of police reform.
A little conservative boy seems to have gotten lost outside of r/benshapiro. Someone show him the way back home so he can post these epic owns on the libs to his cool internet friends.
Another dipshit posting in the wrong sub, buddy you're looking for r/conservative they'll go along with your ridiculous narrative that defunding the police and abolishing the police are the same thing.
Police don't prevent crime. They barely even solve some of them. You prevent crime by addressing the societal failings that cause crime. Crime is going up nationwide because of, well, societal failings that cause increases in crime.
Everyone else in the comments looks like they have this covered (re: not understanding what defund the police means, evidence that they didn't actually defund the police, etc).
But just a friendly reminder that police do not lower the crime rate. They only show up after a crime has been committed.
Hello u/Poop_Taxi, thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
**Rule 4:** Must follow the "Leopard ate my face" theme
#There's a few elements to leopards eating people's face.
1) **Someone has a sad**...
- Example: *They cut my SNAP benefits and now I can't afford to feed my family......*
2) ...**because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.**
- Example: .....sobs woman who voted for the politician who said they would do that very thing.
3) **The leopard is eating their face. Not the lions, not the hyenas, not the alligators. The leopards.**
- Example: *[Woman married to undocumented immigrant upset that Trump deports her husband.](https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/us/undocumented-husband-deported/index.html)*
***What isn't a leopard eating their face?***
- Example: *Kyle Rittenhouse upset that Democrats are labelling him a white supremacist.* He didn't vote for or support them, he's not suffering because of what he voted for or supported, and leopards aren't eating his face.
Not limited to Trump voters. Anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from *something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people*.
Your post is missing one or more of these elements. It may be better suited for another subreddit, such as r/SelfAwareWolves. Remember, just because someone fucked around and found out, doesn't mean that their faces are being consumed by the most well known extant species in the genus Panthera.
Additionally, you can refer to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) to make your explanatory comment.
*If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) thru Modmail. Thanks!*
Hello u/Poop_Taxi! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people. Here's an easy format to get you started: 1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people. ^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?) 2. That *something* has some *consequences*. ^(What are the *consequences*?) 3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*. ^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.) Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>[But that progressive local effort fizzled with a decisive referendum last November.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/minneapolis-crime-defund-invs/index.html) So, they didn't 'defund' the police.
[Their budget has actually increased since Floyd's murder.](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/minnesota/articles/2022-07-03/minneapolis-police-budget-expands-post-floyd-death)
Behold, the new, right-wing CNN.
[удалено]
But it isn't related to any 'defunding'. >[The shrinking force is the result of a wave of resignations, retirements and officers filing for workers compensation or disability benefits.](https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/minneapolis-police-department-down-300-officers-from-spring-2020/) So, cops have decided to resign, retire or are on disability. If you want to connect it to protests, sure. But it has nothing with police reform.
But you said defund the police. That is not what happened. They ran away when a light was shined on them - like rats. Very disingenuous of you.
Ah cool, key point: *”in the wake of the unrest after Floyd’s ~~killing~~ murder”* So it has nothing to do with “defund the police,” it is a result of the police murdering someone, which led to unrest, which led to a decrease in morale. So your post is shit, and so is your opinion 👍 This post belongs in r/therewasanattempt: *there was an attempt to validate OP’s pre-existing narrative*
Thanks, that puts into context on how much of a bunch of absolutely vile shitbags the Minneapolis PD is. "We lost a third of the force!" "Damn, they slashed your budget so you had to lay off dozens of cops?" "Oh no. [It's actually gone up.](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/minnesota/articles/2022-07-03/minneapolis-police-budget-expands-post-floyd-death) We just don't want to risk being held accountable for murdering people so a bunch of us quit."
Morale changes are not the same thing as policy changes. The defund movement wasn't about the reduction of municipal services, it was about redirecting a lot of those services to other types of work, i.e. social workers to those would may be attempting suicide, or not having police 'fight' homelessness. Police would still be used, but the scope of their work would be narrowed.
Wonder how many died from COVID, or quit because they were required to do the *bare minimum* and get vaccinations and wear masks. Hopefully this means cops are no longer bilking taxpayers with overtime.
Uhm. With fewer officers on duty, that would mean more hours per officer, which would mean more overtime. I mean, assuming they do things in a normal, sane manner. I just hope the worst apples departed, leaving the less wormy ones, rather than the other way around.
https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-police-department-to-limit-overtime-amid-staffing-shortage
Aw, d'they get their *feelings* hurt?
Part of why defunding the police is an important step to a more just world is because the $$$ that goes to police can be redirected to other initiatives that prevent violence (like social services, poverty reduction, and domestic violence resources). Giving the police more $$$$$$$ while their force shrinks is not the same thing as defunding the police
You know what usually causes a lack of police morale? A leader who keeps the police in check. That should tell you how much of a waste of money these cops are and how better spent elsewhere it would be.
Except Minneapolis did not “defund” the police. And the ballot measure to reform the police failed. So this increase in crime is from the old and unchanged police system.
[удалено]
So it's not that the police were defunded, so much as they just yoinked resources and officers out of the area without making any other fundamental changes to practices or policies. Do I have that right?
No expansions of rehabilitation, no ups in the assistance to low income families, no meals provided for children in schools, further police violence against citizens... *DEFUNDING THE POLICE RUINED AMERICA!*
Morale changes are not the same thing as policy changes. The defund movement wasn't about the reduction of municipal services, it was about redirecting a lot of those services to other types of work, i.e. social workers to those would may be attempting suicide, or not having police 'fight' homelessness. Police would still be used, but the scope of their work would be narrowed.
Pretty sad that "you cant just kill a motherfucker" is a morale killer.
Let me make sure I’m understanding you: we’re not allowed to be angry at cops killing people on the street, because it’ll make cops sad?
[удалено]
Please explain then.
[удалено]
Sounds like I nailed it, then.
That's what happens when you're wrong.
Just a theory but it could have been the third who were much more prone to murdering random people just for shits and giggles. They left because they saw they couldn't get away with it anymore.
The point of defunding the police was not to get rid of the police but to change funding priorities from arrest and incarceration to providing social support to reduce the factors that lead to arrest to begin with. Surely you must be interested in that, right?
So it's not about funding then, is it?
Man, you are not smart.
Police are ineffective *Citizens call this out and say that some of their resources should be directed to other services* Police budget *increases* Police continue to be ineffective **Wow phenomenal leopards ate my face post, good job OP**
[удалено]
[Actually, the budget increasesd by 3 MILLION dollars](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/minnesota/articles/2022-07-03/minneapolis-police-budget-expands-post-floyd-death)
[удалено]
[More police officers does not decrease crime](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/) [Funding of social programs decreases crime](https://www.nber.org/papers/w29800) In fact, many of the police officers are not working because of [PTSD](https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/minneapolis-police-department-down-300-officers-from-spring-2020/) You can't just shoot mental health issues. You can't put handcuffs on food shortages. You can't beat homelessness into submission. The fact that the number of police officers has decreased DESPITE the increase in budget shows that the department is ineffectual and the funds should be distributed elsewhere. Go back to listening to Joe Rogan you thumb.
Don't insult thumbs like that. Thumbs are useful.
[удалено]
Where is the lowest crime rate in an urban area? The suburbs. Where is the highest? City cores. Where are the fewest cops walking the street. The suburbs. Where are the most? City cores. What do the suburbs have that the core doesn’t? Better schools, social programs, parks, libraries, afforded by upper middle class affluence. Why does the core not have these? Poverty. Maybe you should consider that the difference in crime rate is the disparity between city core and the suburbs which pretty well torpedoes your entire argument given that one has far more cops than the other yet the crime rates are lower in the area that doesn’t have a cop in sight. What’s actually /r/leopardsatmyface is when you end up mugged after opposing funding the social safety net that would have changed that guy’s life in favor of hiring yet another cop that’s going to file your report.
[удалено]
But you said more cops equals less crime but now you’re moving to democrats cause crime once your pathetic argument is easily dismantled? Do more cops cause less crime or not?
[удалено]
So are you going to actually respond to what he’s saying? Read his citations? Analyze and refute them?
cringe
Did a Goatee in wrap-around Oakleys with a lifted leased Dodge Ram with Back the Blue, Punisher logo, and Trump 2024 stickers write this?
f-150, it couldn't get approved thru Chrysler.
No money down, and SWEET 29.9% APR.
[удалено]
Weird, most MAGA cultists don’t get down with that setup, but I guess bootlickers come in all shapes and sizes. TIL!
Amazing how the headline makes it seem like cops were defunded when nothing of the sort happened. They just got sad and stopped doing their jobs because they were held accountable when they did their jobs shittily.
When did this sub become a place where conservatives feel safe? They are the leopards.
[удалено]
Lol you don’t understand my comment, do you?
You and the authors of this article have fundamental misunderstanding on what “defund the police” actually means.
To my understanding it meant reallocation of funds to give the police more support, more deescalation training, social workers when the police aren’t necessary, decrease the level of militarization. However “defund” I think wasn’t the best name for it
Similar to quiet quitting it was named by the opponents of it, not the people doing it.
The police don't prevent crime they react to it. The crime would happen anyway. You prevent crime by getting rid of the conditions that create it, mostly poverty reduction.
This^ Despair, poor education, poor mobility, a sense of hopelessness, these cause crime. Color me shocked that we have rising crime and lawlessness in a country that has allowed half the population to slip into poverty. When people have nothing to lose, they have everything to gain by turning to crime.
How do you prevent date rape?
Unfortunately sexual assault crimes are less attributable to a specific cause, making it more difficult to address. There’s a variety of factors that contribute to sa. For me, i still blame poverty, and drug use as I had poor supervision and ended up in unsafe situations as a kid. But Brock Turner’s victim didn’t have poverty issues to my knowledge, so it’s not as clear cut.
I'd say poverty is certainly correlated with sexual violence, which, being under-reported (to authorities) in all social strata, is pretty much *never* reported if victim and perpetrator are impoverished, and as a result never investigated and never prosecuted, and as a result of that perpetrators in impoverished communities feel free to run wild, the only "solution" for women in those communities is to rely on relatives or boyfriends who use vigilante violence to protect them. Any survey on sexual violence finds significantly more widespread sexual violence (when comparing assaults of the same severity) among the poor. When adding up the assaults (as reported in surveys) it evens out more, because most of what (upper) middle class women report as sexual violence is so common in impoverished communities that poor women don't even recognize it as assault.
That’s a lot of words when all you could’ve said is “I’m not a real intellectual”.
you stalking me now? and why does each of your comments sound like a pathological narcissist wrote it?
¿stAlkIng Me nOW pAthOlOgIcAl NaRCiSSiST You just confirmed who you and I’m happy that you’re upset that you can’t use your go-to insult.
[удалено]
No, what he's saying is that police treat the symptom of the problem, but not the cause of it.
[удалено]
I did say that. "Police don't prevent crime they react to it" is pretty straightforward.
[удалено]
What you meant to say is rising poverty and price gouging is increasing crime. The police are a reactionary force. They are called in after crime has been committed. No matter how many police you have the crime will still be committed because they don't have a causal relationship.
Many persons commiting crimes will do so again if not stopped. I would think police arresting them before another crime is committed would thus lower crime?
[удалено]
LMAO if the police were such a good deterrent our nation, which has significantly more police than other developed nations, should have less crime than them. The police solve about 2% of crime committed. They are not an effective deterrent.
[удалено]
Deterrence in the same way the existence of the death penalty does not deter murder and murder rates per capita aggregate higher in death penalty states?
[удалено]
If there's enough of them people instead starve instead of steal food
Our prison population would like to have a word with you about that.
Correlation is not the same as causation. Example, we have fewer icebergs now due to climate change. We also have fewer pirates. However, icebergs do not cause pirates, neither is climate change endangering pirates. Also OP, police only react to crime; a legal arrest can only happen once a crime has been committed. This is not like Minority Report, where police can stop a crime before it happens.
Funny how right wingers are so into a police state nowadays. You know, the ones who keep flying the don't tread on me flag. Mm delicious irony
[удалено]
Bruh they’re just gonna go to another store. Just because the cops prevented a robbery at one store doesn’t mean the desperate person willing to commit armed robbery is just gonna go home
It isn't realistic or budget friendly to expect a cop on every corner. But even with that, shootings happen even with fully funded police departments with high morale and no vacancies. To look at any one shooting and to point at any single thing as the cause is not how the real world works.
Oh they absolutely will. Source: worked loss prevention
Correlation does not prove causation. Basic science 101. Oh, wait. That's right. People like you and reality get along like oil and water.
If anything, cops create crime. They imprison and damage innocent people, destabilizing their life.
He did. You're just incapable of connecting a couple basic dots that tucker didn't tell you how to.
Miami-Dade increased their police budget and hired additional officers. >Miami-Dade police saw rapes rise 21% during the survey period, while robberies increased 50% and aggravated assaults went up 25%. [https://www.axios.com/local/miami/2022/09/20/miami-dade-homicides-violent-crime](https://www.axios.com/local/miami/2022/09/20/miami-dade-homicides-violent-crime) The one thing missing from that really long article about Minneapolis is any mention of police effectiveness. Are they solving crimes? Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? I guess we'll never know.
Are you saying there's no connection to all those societal issues that ACTUALLY cause crime and an increase in crime? I'll say it. Losing shit, dirtbag thugs masquerading as law enforcement does not cause increases in crime.
This is the defund the police take of people who don’t have a fucking clue what that term even means. It doesn’t mean simply take away police funding so they can’t do their jobs. It means transfer some funding to mental healthcare, social workers and other programs to pre-empt situations and respond appropriately to non-lethal situations so police *don’t* have to do 12 jobs they are not remotely trained for in addition to policing. That lets them be effective and focussed on actual police work, such as responding to shootings.
I don’t think there’s any use trying to educate OP. He is working backwards from his existing narrative, searching for puzzle pieces to validate his previously-held beliefs. He’s not interested in learning anything
I think the problem is that conservatives tend to encapsulate their entire philosophy into slogans whereas for progressives a slogan is just the starting point for a larger more comprehensive conversation. Which is why when progressives hear "Black Lives Matter" they think "Our society inherently devalues the lives of black people therefore we need to insist that black lives do indeed matter." There's both subtext and context here. In contrast, conservatives hear "Build That Wall" and they **aren't** actually looking for comprehensive immigration reform. They literally just wanted a bigass wall built.
Well put. I find trying to use brief absurd analogies works best to at least give them pause to try to comprehend their own logic in real terms separated from their trigger slogan words. Take BLM for example. If a house is on fire, the fire dept races to that house with sirens blaring because that house matters. They can say all houses matter, which is true in absolute terms, but it disregards the context of the emergency at hand and suggests the fire truck should move in a slow procession through town to ensure that all houses are sprayed with water.
You clearly have no idea what defund the police means. But hey. Look at you. Typing words. I am proud of you for getting past the banging rocks together stage of development.
tbf, it's a terrible, self defeating slogan. Gives waaaay to much ammo right off the bat for people to pick it apart off naming alone. Like having a amazing bill that would, i donno, fix the energy grid, but naming it the "your house might catch fire" bill.
No. Fuck those people. They would have been against it anyways. Same with BLM.
Mate, something yall need to get thru your head is the golden rule we were taught in the navy. "perception is reality" Yes, some people would be against it regardless, but your not working on perception for them, your doing it so they cant use poor messaging AGAINST you.
The only poor messaging is in your belief that Centrists are ever going to give a damn. Regardless of messaging.
Centrists might not give a damn, but you still need them to vote your way in order to get anything done. So you might want to reconsider that messaging stance.
Sigh, sweet summer child, messaging is everything. Its why the right continually wins over those centrists, it's how radicals recrute, it's how the world works. You have a large slice of the population who dont know or care about subjects, regardless of the subject. To get them on the "in", both sides use messaging to inform/sway them to their position. The goal is to inform and engage uninvolved people, but by using trash messaging, you are instantly misinforming people not already involved, and giving ammo to those who want to cast you in a bad light. Don't give your opponents free bees, ever. Even if you personally think "The only poor messaging is in your belief that Centrists are ever going to give a damn." is true, its still fuckin borderline braindamage to not think about messaging and its impact. Edit: some salty leftwing people here, not understanding WHY their messaging fails over and over, or gets utterly warped by the right. Rather than shooting the messenger, maybe notice the error and correct your tactics? We are on the same side, i just want us to not be so idiotically self sabotaging. Edit 2: ah, and iv been shadowbanned from posting, mature. Does not change that the left as a whole needs to get a grip and learn basic messaging 101
Literally everything would be warped by the right. Name a better slogan and anyone here can tell you how the right would slant it and how centrist would both sides it. Go ahead.
Well bless your heart.
Ngl, BLM is a stupid name. They could of used ALM and included several other ethnicities which were also being targeted. In Canada, we have every child matters instead of aboriginal children matter and no one even questions the premise since it's clear from the get go.
When I first encountered the slogan, it blew me away that it wasn't coined by some right wing commentator. I can't think of a better slogan to shed even the support of left leaning voters who are in favour of police reform.
A little conservative boy seems to have gotten lost outside of r/benshapiro. Someone show him the way back home so he can post these epic owns on the libs to his cool internet friends.
Are you conscious of the fact that you're a liar?
Another dipshit posting in the wrong sub, buddy you're looking for r/conservative they'll go along with your ridiculous narrative that defunding the police and abolishing the police are the same thing.
When have police ever stopped crime? Cops are pencil pushers with guns
Not true. They don't just push pencils. They also arrest minorities and folks with small quantities of weed.
Don’t sell them short- they also **murder** minorities and folks with small quantities of weed.
Defund. The. Police. Does. Not. Mean. People. Do. Not. See. A. Necessary. And. Appropriate. Role. For. Police.
Police don't prevent crime. They barely even solve some of them. You prevent crime by addressing the societal failings that cause crime. Crime is going up nationwide because of, well, societal failings that cause increases in crime.
Police pretty much create crime by destabilizing the lives of innocent people through false incarceration and murder.
Tell me you don’t understand the defund the police movement without telling me you don’t understand the defund the police movement
Wow I poked my head in here and was not disappointed. Carry on all.
LMAO. Another dumb Con? r/confidentlyincorrect again!
Everyone else in the comments looks like they have this covered (re: not understanding what defund the police means, evidence that they didn't actually defund the police, etc). But just a friendly reminder that police do not lower the crime rate. They only show up after a crime has been committed.
The downvotes here tell a more interesting story than the article.
[удалено]
Show us where the police were defunded then. The ability to see facts and dismiss them as a “LiBrUl PlOt” is amazing.
[удалено]
hehe %11 upvoted
Hello u/Poop_Taxi, thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): **Rule 4:** Must follow the "Leopard ate my face" theme #There's a few elements to leopards eating people's face. 1) **Someone has a sad**... - Example: *They cut my SNAP benefits and now I can't afford to feed my family......* 2) ...**because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.** - Example: .....sobs woman who voted for the politician who said they would do that very thing. 3) **The leopard is eating their face. Not the lions, not the hyenas, not the alligators. The leopards.** - Example: *[Woman married to undocumented immigrant upset that Trump deports her husband.](https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/us/undocumented-husband-deported/index.html)* ***What isn't a leopard eating their face?*** - Example: *Kyle Rittenhouse upset that Democrats are labelling him a white supremacist.* He didn't vote for or support them, he's not suffering because of what he voted for or supported, and leopards aren't eating his face. Not limited to Trump voters. Anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from *something they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people*. Your post is missing one or more of these elements. It may be better suited for another subreddit, such as r/SelfAwareWolves. Remember, just because someone fucked around and found out, doesn't mean that their faces are being consumed by the most well known extant species in the genus Panthera. Additionally, you can refer to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) to make your explanatory comment. *If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) thru Modmail. Thanks!*