MoCo council results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

+1
The viewpoint above is what I don’t want to see in our new council members. The police are not the enemy and shouldn’t be painted as such. When I see this perspective, I always wonder how much this person really knows about policing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Where do police fit in? We can provide better mental health services, improve k-12 education, increase access to health care, work toward more affordable housing… we can do all of this, and there will still be crime. It’s very naive to assume otherwise. What then? Who responds? You say police aren’t the answer, but be logical. Sometimes they are the ONLY answer. I assume you live somewhere with low crime. I don’t. I feel better with police in my neighborhood. I’m well aware many of my neighbors do, as well. Supporting police is not equal to calling for a police state. (Who is actually calling for that anyway? That’s simply hyperbole. We just want elected officials to work WITH police instead of making the job so undesirable that we can’t even hire any, which is where we are.)

We need police who work WITH the community, too. The police are bizarre -- they're like a military force. I do live in a relatively safe neighborhood, and I used to call the police when I saw issues, but now I don't. Now I really have to ask myself if calling the police will make things better or just end in someone being killed.

We need to change the way the police are trained. They're trained to make hair-trigger decisions as if each interaction is a matter of life or death. I get that that is true sometimes, but not all the time. Common sense goes a long way.

We have a societal problem. More police won't solve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

You can insult all you want, and make it seem like I'm saying punishing violent crime is the same as living in a police state all you want (that's clearly not what I said) but much of the country agrees with my sentiment. That many Americans cannot all suffer from paranoia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Where do police fit in? We can provide better mental health services, improve k-12 education, increase access to health care, work toward more affordable housing… we can do all of this, and there will still be crime. It’s very naive to assume otherwise. What then? Who responds? You say police aren’t the answer, but be logical. Sometimes they are the ONLY answer. I assume you live somewhere with low crime. I don’t. I feel better with police in my neighborhood. I’m well aware many of my neighbors do, as well. Supporting police is not equal to calling for a police state. (Who is actually calling for that anyway? That’s simply hyperbole. We just want elected officials to work WITH police instead of making the job so undesirable that we can’t even hire any, which is where we are.)

We need police who work WITH the community, too. The police are bizarre -- they're like a military force. I do live in a relatively safe neighborhood, and I used to call the police when I saw issues, but now I don't. Now I really have to ask myself if calling the police will make things better or just end in someone being killed.

We need to change the way the police are trained. They're trained to make hair-trigger decisions as if each interaction is a matter of life or death. I get that that is true sometimes, but not all the time. Common sense goes a long way.

We have a societal problem. More police won't solve it.

Yes, we have a societal problem. Yes, police are part of the solution. Your viewpoint, which comes dangerously close to "all cops are bad," actually perpetuates much of the problem. The truth is, what you say is not backed up by FACT. Most police interactions result in absolutely no use of force. Let's use MCPD data instead of national data, which pays respect to the fact we have a highly-trained and well-regarded department. (Well, it isn't well-regarded by some council members.) Here's 2021 data:

"In 2021, there were 593 incidents where some type of force was used in response to resistance reported, an increase of 25% from 2020. That means force was used by officers in 0.32 percent of the total dispatched calls for service. In 92 percent of incidents, officers used no protective instruments or weapons. Instead, officers used only their hands while attempting to place a subject in custody or otherwise gain control of them. Similarly, this was the most common type of force used against our officers by subjects, in a year in which the number of assaults on officers increased by 13 percent." It seems as if our police use A LOT of common sense.
Source: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/Annual-Reports/UseOfForce/2021%20MCPD%20Use%20of%20Force%20Report.pdf

The simple truth is that calling the police, especially MCPD, will NOT "just end in someone being killed." It's this faulty thinking that perpetuates the social media-driven attack on police and it is unfair to the men and women who do the job honorably. There are many, and I recommend you AND the new council should go and meet them. I also recommend you look into how they are trained. Fortunately, MCPD has a Citizen's Academy for which you can apply. It will give you insight into the profession and you can feel more comfortable with the police we have in this county. We need fewer people who are willing to go on the attack. You admit you live in a safe area, so I'm guessing you don't feel the need for them as much as some of us do. We would appreciate more support when it comes to public safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

You can insult all you want, and make it seem like I'm saying punishing violent crime is the same as living in a police state all you want (that's clearly not what I said) but much of the country agrees with my sentiment. That many Americans cannot all suffer from paranoia.

You understand that having a smaller police force (which is what is happening) will lead to more crime, right, not less?

Do you think most of us want to live in a police state? No. But, we also don't want to live in a city that allows criminals to do what they want, other than violent crime.

Did you read about how SF got rid of their uber progressive DA whom you probably would support? What happened in SF is what will happen here if you go soft on crime. Even uber liberals in SF have a line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, is MoCo doomed with the way the primaries are turning out for county council? It looks like the county is on the fast track to becoming San Francisco at this rate. What should we expect? More crime? Decreasing quality of schools? Increasing taxes?

Very worried at the moment.

? Not as bad as all that, but if you think it is, moving is a lot easier than trying to move mountains.

DP, yea, after the kids are done with school (4 more years), we are moving.

To where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Where do police fit in? We can provide better mental health services, improve k-12 education, increase access to health care, work toward more affordable housing… we can do all of this, and there will still be crime. It’s very naive to assume otherwise. What then? Who responds? You say police aren’t the answer, but be logical. Sometimes they are the ONLY answer. I assume you live somewhere with low crime. I don’t. I feel better with police in my neighborhood. I’m well aware many of my neighbors do, as well. Supporting police is not equal to calling for a police state. (Who is actually calling for that anyway? That’s simply hyperbole. We just want elected officials to work WITH police instead of making the job so undesirable that we can’t even hire any, which is where we are.)

We need police who work WITH the community, too. The police are bizarre -- they're like a military force. I do live in a relatively safe neighborhood, and I used to call the police when I saw issues, but now I don't. Now I really have to ask myself if calling the police will make things better or just end in someone being killed.

We need to change the way the police are trained. They're trained to make hair-trigger decisions as if each interaction is a matter of life or death. I get that that is true sometimes, but not all the time. Common sense goes a long way.

We have a societal problem. More police won't solve it.

Just to put it in perspective, Montgomery County police respond to almost 200,000 calls for service each year. They have about 500 uses of force. The are involved in 1-2 officer-involved shootings a year. All of the people killed were armed and threatening the police or others.

This is not a police state. This is what responsible law enforcement looks like in the most heavily armed civilian population in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Where do police fit in? We can provide better mental health services, improve k-12 education, increase access to health care, work toward more affordable housing… we can do all of this, and there will still be crime. It’s very naive to assume otherwise. What then? Who responds? You say police aren’t the answer, but be logical. Sometimes they are the ONLY answer. I assume you live somewhere with low crime. I don’t. I feel better with police in my neighborhood. I’m well aware many of my neighbors do, as well. Supporting police is not equal to calling for a police state. (Who is actually calling for that anyway? That’s simply hyperbole. We just want elected officials to work WITH police instead of making the job so undesirable that we can’t even hire any, which is where we are.)

We need police who work WITH the community, too. The police are bizarre -- they're like a military force. I do live in a relatively safe neighborhood, and I used to call the police when I saw issues, but now I don't. Now I really have to ask myself if calling the police will make things better or just end in someone being killed.

We need to change the way the police are trained. They're trained to make hair-trigger decisions as if each interaction is a matter of life or death. I get that that is true sometimes, but not all the time. Common sense goes a long way.

We have a societal problem. More police won't solve it.

Just to put it in perspective, Montgomery County police respond to almost 200,000 calls for service each year. They have about 500 uses of force. The are involved in 1-2 officer-involved shootings a year. All of the people killed were armed and threatening the police or others.

This is not a police state. This is what responsible law enforcement looks like in the most heavily armed civilian population in the world.

Yes! Thank you!
My spouse is a Montgomery County police officer. He has saved several lives and taken none, but that won’t matter a bit to the anti-police types in the county. Fortunately, he has a thick skin and will continue to serve the county well, even when posters like the one above assume he’ll simply shoot first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

You should look into the Colorado star program if you actually want to understand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

You should look into the Colorado star program if you actually want to understand

I’m aware of that and it’s a good program, but ask (sincerely) if it is needed in Montgomery County. The STAR program responds “to low risk calls where individuals are not in imminent risk. STAR deals with low level behavioral health crises and issues that arise from public health needs and poverty. Some examples are, trespass calls, welfare checks, intoxicated parties and mental health crisis.” Our MCPD already does a remarkably good job of that, as evidenced by the statistics provided above. Why break what isn’t broken? The current council, to keep this thread on track, used national data to inform local decisions. We have always had a premier police force, one that was used as a model for other jurisdictions. It’s time to respect what we had (and have) instead of intentionally destroying it in the name of “progress.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

You should look into the Colorado star program if you actually want to understand

Also… understand what?
The PP (not me) asked you to consider how “punishing violent crime” is akin to “living in a police state.” The STAR program doesn’t relate at all since it does not respond to violent crime.

[Anonymous]

All I know is that the number of shooting, assualts, and crime overall are exploding in areas like Silver Spring.

And the county just voted to elect in clowns who want to reduce police presence? MoCo is doomed to becoming Baltimore. Wait until the wealthy flee the area for greener pastures and take their taxes with them.

The decline of MoCo is going to be exponential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Imagine thinking punishing violent crime is living in a police state. You need help for your paranoia.

these people complaining about a police statement will be demanding cameras in homes to make sure people aren’t smoking or vaping. The state telling you how much electricity you can use etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best hope is opposing blocks that result in something like this.

The “reasonable block”:
- Balcombe
- Sayles
- Katz
- Friedson
- Albornoz

The “worrying block”:
- Stewart
- Mink
- Jawando
- Fani Gonzalez
- Glass

The “tie breaker”:
- Luedtke

I’m definitely concerned about the “worrying block.” Kate Stewart’s website says she wants to work to fully implement the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations. The police are already so short-staffed, and that report calls for further reductions. Specifically, a 50% reduction in force is suggested for Wheaton and Silver Spring, two districts experiencing an increase in crime. I know she’ll have support on this council, so I worry about how this will affect people living in those districts AND how it will affect remaining officers.

Sounds like a disaster.

yea, let's reduce the police force in high crime areas. That'll teach those criminals. Or maybe progressives think that the criminals will feel less threatened so they'll be less likely to commit a crime? I honestly don't understand how their mind works.

I'll explain. I don't want to live in a police state. Society can't be run by police. We need to improve society to take care of the problems causing all this crime. We can't just continue pumping out criminals and pumping out police. That's not a decent, intelligent, thought-out solution, and not the kind of society I want to live in. Also not the kind of society we used to have. Police are not the answer.

Where do police fit in? We can provide better mental health services, improve k-12 education, increase access to health care, work toward more affordable housing… we can do all of this, and there will still be crime. It’s very naive to assume otherwise. What then? Who responds? You say police aren’t the answer, but be logical. Sometimes they are the ONLY answer. I assume you live somewhere with low crime. I don’t. I feel better with police in my neighborhood. I’m well aware many of my neighbors do, as well. Supporting police is not equal to calling for a police state. (Who is actually calling for that anyway? That’s simply hyperbole. We just want elected officials to work WITH police instead of making the job so undesirable that we can’t even hire any, which is where we are.)

We need police who work WITH the community, too. The police are bizarre -- they're like a military force. I do live in a relatively safe neighborhood, and I used to call the police when I saw issues, but now I don't. Now I really have to ask myself if calling the police will make things better or just end in someone being killed.

We need to change the way the police are trained. They're trained to make hair-trigger decisions as if each interaction is a matter of life or death. I get that that is true sometimes, but not all the time. Common sense goes a long way.

We have a societal problem. More police won't solve it.

Yes, we have a societal problem. Yes, police are part of the solution. Your viewpoint, which comes dangerously close to "all cops are bad," actually perpetuates much of the problem. The truth is, what you say is not backed up by FACT. Most police interactions result in absolutely no use of force. Let's use MCPD data instead of national data, which pays respect to the fact we have a highly-trained and well-regarded department. (Well, it isn't well-regarded by some council members.) Here's 2021 data:

"In 2021, there were 593 incidents where some type of force was used in response to resistance reported, an increase of 25% from 2020. That means force was used by officers in 0.32 percent of the total dispatched calls for service. In 92 percent of incidents, officers used no protective instruments or weapons. Instead, officers used only their hands while attempting to place a subject in custody or otherwise gain control of them. Similarly, this was the most common type of force used against our officers by subjects, in a year in which the number of assaults on officers increased by 13 percent." It seems as if our police use A LOT of common sense.
Source: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/Annual-Reports/UseOfForce/2021%20MCPD%20Use%20of%20Force%20Report.pdf

The simple truth is that calling the police, especially MCPD, will NOT "just end in someone being killed." It's this faulty thinking that perpetuates the social media-driven attack on police and it is unfair to the men and women who do the job honorably. There are many, and I recommend you AND the new council should go and meet them. I also recommend you look into how they are trained. Fortunately, MCPD has a Citizen's Academy for which you can apply. It will give you insight into the profession and you can feel more comfortable with the police we have in this county. We need fewer people who are willing to go on the attack. You admit you live in a safe area, so I'm guessing you don't feel the need for them as much as some of us do. We would appreciate more support when it comes to public safety.

LOL, no, my attitude does not perpetuate much of the problem. I live in Montgomery County. Even if police interaction doesn't end in someone being killed, there are plenty of interactions with police that I find disturbing -- like that 19 year old who had his head covered in his own shirt and then banged against the cement repeatedly, while handcuffed, while other officers just stood there looking bored. Frankly, I don't want my society to operate like that. I don't approve of people who behave like that. I certainly don't respect them. No one that dead to others should be a police officer -- and there are obviously plenty like them, otherwise these other police would have been reacting instead of just standing there like, ho hum. I expect more of the police than the type of officers we have. Sorry.