Ward 4 Election

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

I’m sorry you can’t find a real job and have to do that instead, but everyone knows it’s a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser proposal to toughen D.C.’s approach to crime draws resistance

Council members and others appeared to oppose the measure that would make it easier to detain youths before trial

The D.C. mayor’s legislative proposal that would impose new penalties for gun crimes and make it easier to detain some youths awaiting trial encountered fierce resistance at a council hearing Tuesday, even as the city’s top federal prosecutor and a host of residents said the bill would help reduce violent crime in the nation’s capital.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

....That tension between the mayor and her council around how to address crime is familiar. Earlier this year, they sparred over a revision to the District’s criminal code — with the mayor vetoing the measure that would have decreased sentences for some crimes, only to have the council override her. Congress ultimately weighed in and sided with the mayor, voting to block local legislation for the first time in more than 30 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/27/bowser-crime-bill-dc-council-opposition/

Narrator: Bowser is a liberal Democrat, but even an anti-crime bill from a liberal Democrat goes too far for hard left activist Janeese Lewis George.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

Sorry, but I don’t care a fig if the mayor’s bill is “incredibly traumatizing” for violent young street punks who have inflicted trauma (and even worse) on crime victims and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

"Violence interrupters" have been around since the 1990s. It's not a new idea. It's been tried many, many times before in this country. It doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser proposal to toughen D.C.’s approach to crime draws resistance

Council members and others appeared to oppose the measure that would make it easier to detain youths before trial

The D.C. mayor’s legislative proposal that would impose new penalties for gun crimes and make it easier to detain some youths awaiting trial encountered fierce resistance at a council hearing Tuesday, even as the city’s top federal prosecutor and a host of residents said the bill would help reduce violent crime in the nation’s capital.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

....That tension between the mayor and her council around how to address crime is familiar. Earlier this year, they sparred over a revision to the District’s criminal code — with the mayor vetoing the measure that would have decreased sentences for some crimes, only to have the council override her. Congress ultimately weighed in and sided with the mayor, voting to block local legislation for the first time in more than 30 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/27/bowser-crime-bill-dc-council-opposition/

Narrator: Bowser is a liberal Democrat, but even an anti-crime bill from a liberal Democrat goes too far for hard left activist Janeese Lewis George.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

Sorry, but I don’t care a fig if the mayor’s bill is “incredibly traumatizing” for violent young street punks who have inflicted trauma (and even worse) on crime victims and their families.

Janeese Lewis George should meet with victims and the families of victims of violent crimes. Maybe she'd rethink who is really being traumatized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser proposal to toughen D.C.’s approach to crime draws resistance

Council members and others appeared to oppose the measure that would make it easier to detain youths before trial

The D.C. mayor’s legislative proposal that would impose new penalties for gun crimes and make it easier to detain some youths awaiting trial encountered fierce resistance at a council hearing Tuesday, even as the city’s top federal prosecutor and a host of residents said the bill would help reduce violent crime in the nation’s capital.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

....That tension between the mayor and her council around how to address crime is familiar. Earlier this year, they sparred over a revision to the District’s criminal code — with the mayor vetoing the measure that would have decreased sentences for some crimes, only to have the council override her. Congress ultimately weighed in and sided with the mayor, voting to block local legislation for the first time in more than 30 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/27/bowser-crime-bill-dc-council-opposition/

Narrator: Bowser is a liberal Democrat, but even an anti-crime bill from a liberal Democrat goes too far for hard left activist Janeese Lewis George.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

Sorry, but I don’t care a fig if the mayor’s bill is “incredibly traumatizing” for violent young street punks who have inflicted trauma (and even worse) on crime victims and their families.

Janeese Lewis George should meet with victims and the families of victims of violent crimes. Maybe she'd rethink who is really being traumatized.

She has. She did a ‘walk through’ after an incredibly scary and violent crime occurred in my neighborhood in broad daylight in front of children. She never came back again to meet with people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser proposal to toughen D.C.’s approach to crime draws resistance

Council members and others appeared to oppose the measure that would make it easier to detain youths before trial

The D.C. mayor’s legislative proposal that would impose new penalties for gun crimes and make it easier to detain some youths awaiting trial encountered fierce resistance at a council hearing Tuesday, even as the city’s top federal prosecutor and a host of residents said the bill would help reduce violent crime in the nation’s capital.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

....That tension between the mayor and her council around how to address crime is familiar. Earlier this year, they sparred over a revision to the District’s criminal code — with the mayor vetoing the measure that would have decreased sentences for some crimes, only to have the council override her. Congress ultimately weighed in and sided with the mayor, voting to block local legislation for the first time in more than 30 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/27/bowser-crime-bill-dc-council-opposition/

Narrator: Bowser is a liberal Democrat, but even an anti-crime bill from a liberal Democrat goes too far for hard left activist Janeese Lewis George.

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said the proposed legislation would be “incredibly traumatizing” to children.

Sorry, but I don’t care a fig if the mayor’s bill is “incredibly traumatizing” for violent young street punks who have inflicted trauma (and even worse) on crime victims and their families.

Janeese Lewis George should meet with victims and the families of victims of violent crimes. Maybe she'd rethink who is really being traumatized.

She has. She did a ‘walk through’ after an incredibly scary and violent crime occurred in my neighborhood in broad daylight in front of children. She never came back again to meet with people.

The victims of crime—people who were carjacked with their baby in the back seat or were stabbed on their way to work—are huge inconveniences to her project to coddle criminals.

[Anonymous]

Good thing for her rando internet trolls like you all don't vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

I've never met anyone in real life who thinks violence interrupters are effective, except those who work in a poverty pimp-adjacent industry (and I'm including local politicians there). It's almost a litmus test for whether you think substantive metrics should have any place in evaluating public policy programs, or whether the nicest-sounding idea should just be defended to the death as a personality trait.

Well that's kind of you to admit that you're sheltered.

LOL I have family here, in Baltimore, and in NYC, many of whom live in the neighborhoods where violence is supposed to be being "interrupted" by these programs. You're a white lady from Kansas who moved to the ~*~Big City~*~ for college and thinks she's saving people with played out unworkable policies because it sounds like something AOC would give you a high five for defending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

Violence interrupter programs have been around for 30+ years. The idea that you just heard about it so therefore it's a fresh idea is pretty illuminating to the kinds of people that are committed to defending this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

I've never met anyone in real life who thinks violence interrupters are effective, except those who work in a poverty pimp-adjacent industry (and I'm including local politicians there). It's almost a litmus test for whether you think substantive metrics should have any place in evaluating public policy programs, or whether the nicest-sounding idea should just be defended to the death as a personality trait.

Well that's kind of you to admit that you're sheltered.

LOL I have family here, in Baltimore, and in NYC, many of whom live in the neighborhoods where violence is supposed to be being "interrupted" by these programs. You're a white lady from Kansas who moved to the ~*~Big City~*~ for college and thinks she's saving people with played out unworkable policies because it sounds like something AOC would give you a high five for defending.

So, once again, thanks for being honest. You do, yourself live in a bubble.

Nice try with the rest of your blathering, but way off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good thing for her rando internet trolls like you all don't vote

Random internet troll here who cannot wait to vote for Lisa Gore (a name I just learned last week who is the NOT JLG candidate).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

Violence interrupter programs have been around for 30+ years. The idea that you just heard about it so therefore it's a fresh idea is pretty illuminating to the kinds of people that are committed to defending this nonsense.

So cool, at what levels has DC been funding it over the last 30 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

I've never met anyone in real life who thinks violence interrupters are effective, except those who work in a poverty pimp-adjacent industry (and I'm including local politicians there). It's almost a litmus test for whether you think substantive metrics should have any place in evaluating public policy programs, or whether the nicest-sounding idea should just be defended to the death as a personality trait.

Well that's kind of you to admit that you're sheltered.

LOL I have family here, in Baltimore, and in NYC, many of whom live in the neighborhoods where violence is supposed to be being "interrupted" by these programs. You're a white lady from Kansas who moved to the ~*~Big City~*~ for college and thinks she's saving people with played out unworkable policies because it sounds like something AOC would give you a high five for defending.

So, once again, thanks for being honest. You do, yourself live in a bubble.

Nice try with the rest of your blathering, but way off.

What part of "here" makes you think I don't live in Ward 4? You're trying so hard, and missing by a mile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

Violence interrupter programs have been around for 30+ years. The idea that you just heard about it so therefore it's a fresh idea is pretty illuminating to the kinds of people that are committed to defending this nonsense.

So cool, at what levels has DC been funding it over the last 30 years?

Well, it’s a proven failure, so, ideally, not at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

"Violence interrupters" have been around since the 1990s. It's not a new idea. It's been tried many, many times before in this country. It doesn't work.

And before the “violence interrupters,” there were the guardian angels with their little berets