Let’s talk election results. I guess we’re even MORE progressive now in the face of rising crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people most concerned about crime moved in the past two years.

I wouldn’t be too sure. Everyone has their own limit or trigger and it can be very personal. But there also has been a significant loss of population over the last 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a split. Mayor, AG, at-large and Chair that just won are all moderates. The new Ward councilmembrs are more progressive.

Basically, rich white people in Wards 1 and 3 (Nadeu andn Frumin) and 6 (Allen unopposed) don't really understand that crime is bad for black people primarily and instead get feel-good votes that they imagine make them Good White People.

Ward 1 is not only rich white people (nor is Ward 6). And policing and crime didn't seem like a major focus of the Ward 3 race for any of the candidates. (If anything, people in Ward 3 lately seem shocked — SHOCKED! — to find that crime sometimes happens here, too, and so you'd think someone could have run hard at that and done well with it, but apparently not.) Also, the D.C. attorney general isn't the chief prosecutor of crimes in the city, anyway, so crime is only tangentially related to that election.

Rich white people in Ward 1 voted Salah, not Nadeau.

This is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people most concerned about crime moved in the past two years.

I wouldn’t be too sure. Everyone has their own limit or trigger and it can be very personal. But there also has been a significant loss of population over the last 2 years.

We moved and I can name at least five other families who also moved. The primary reason for all of us was crime.

[Anonymous]

The new DC council should also reconsider the use of the word "crime." It's such a loaded term. Given the immense power imbalance across the city, is it really fair to label certain behaviors to be "criminal?" For example, if a marginalized person in need takes someone else's property, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "restorative appropriation" rather than stealing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frumin publicly said that he supports more funding for MPD in the Washington Post. I'm not sure why people think he will be more progressive than Cheh.

+1. I get that Frumin is more progressive than Goulet, but controlling crime was actually a top issue in Ward 3 and basically all of the leading candidates were in favor of getting a handle on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin publicly said that he supports more funding for MPD in the Washington Post. I'm not sure why people think he will be more progressive than Cheh.

+1. I get that Frumin is more progressive than Goulet, but controlling crime was actually a top issue in Ward 3 and basically all of the leading candidates were in favor of getting a handle on it.

hahahaha.

[Anonymous]

Am I on PoP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new DC council should also reconsider the use of the word "crime." It's such a loaded term. Given the immense power imbalance across the city, is it really fair to label certain behaviors to be "criminal?" For example, if a marginalized person in need takes someone else's property, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "restorative appropriation" rather than stealing?

I keep re-reading this and I can't tell if you're being serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new DC council should also reconsider the use of the word "crime." It's such a loaded term. Given the immense power imbalance across the city, is it really fair to label certain behaviors to be "criminal?" For example, if a marginalized person in need takes someone else's property, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "restorative appropriation" rather than stealing?

I keep re-reading this and I can't tell if you're being serious.

San Francisco leads the way, where stealing less than $950 is already effectively decriminalized. That's true restorative justice our new DC council could implement immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new DC council should also reconsider the use of the word "crime." It's such a loaded term. Given the immense power imbalance across the city, is it really fair to label certain behaviors to be "criminal?" For example, if a marginalized person in need takes someone else's property, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "restorative appropriation" rather than stealing?

I keep re-reading this and I can't tell if you're being serious.

Sadly there are people who think like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new DC council should also reconsider the use of the word "crime." It's such a loaded term. Given the immense power imbalance across the city, is it really fair to label certain behaviors to be "criminal?" For example, if a marginalized person in need takes someone else's property, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "restorative appropriation" rather than stealing?

I keep re-reading this and I can't tell if you're being serious.

Sadly there are people who think like this.

Yup.

Even remarking on a neighborhood Facebook group page these days that maybe due to the rise in crime more police would be helpful is now considered insensitive and even racist. It’s nuts. Everyone is offended and an activist, but many are clueless about how to be an actual ally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin publicly said that he supports more funding for MPD in the Washington Post. I'm not sure why people think he will be more progressive than Cheh.

Frumin is more wonk than woke. But he can also be a weathervane, depending on his audience.

yeah and I see him in the vein of Cheh here anyways. almost all the w3 candidates are aligned on public safety. Only beau was different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

Lol, I’m a NP who has worked in DC as a lawyer for 15 years and not a single soul (including your “100 friends”) calls it the federal DAs office, it’s referred to as USAO. The handling of juvenile crime is extremely important in DC. These carjackings and robberies that are constantly being talked about? Most of them are being committed by actual juveniles, or people between 18-25 with prior contact with the juvenile justice system. What the teens of DC have learned during Karl Racine’s tenure as AG is that just about anything they do while they are under 18 will be treated with a slap on the wrist. In fact they routinely brag after being arrested that “I’ll be out tomorrow”. Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new DC council should also reconsider the use of the word "crime." It's such a loaded term. Given the immense power imbalance across the city, is it really fair to label certain behaviors to be "criminal?" For example, if a marginalized person in need takes someone else's property, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "restorative appropriation" rather than stealing?

I keep re-reading this and I can't tell if you're being serious.

Sadly there are people who think like this.

Yup.

Even remarking on a neighborhood Facebook group page these days that maybe due to the rise in crime more police would be helpful is now considered insensitive and even racist. It’s nuts. Everyone is offended and an activist, but many are clueless about how to be an actual ally.

As someone who has reported two crimes to the police, they don't actually solve crime. Not sure how they prevent it, either, unless they happen to be right on the spot when it's happening. It's fun to blame progressives or whatever, but more cops =/= less crime. Crime is caused by lots of things, many of which have nothing to do with policing.