Another DTSS garage murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

Thank you for the cite.

I don’t agree with that specific proposal but I see no harm that it was mentioned in a report. It’s a valid POV even if you disagree and it is wrong to suggest that anybody wants to make our community less safe. There is room for disagreement but not for misrepresenting the goals of those who you disagree with.

I also see the following in the same report so it seems like a reasonable document.
“Challenge to reducing patrol officers in districts 3 and 4: One community member disagreed with this recommendation As representative of the MC-NAACP Branch, Unit 7022, on the task force noted, "it would be more pragmatic to support a ratio of uniform police staffing in relation to population density in Districts 3 & 4, rather than reduce staffing to these communities. It would also be useful to see the conviction rate in relation to the over-policing of these areas, as many believe”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next door people are saying the victim was shot 4 times in the head.

If true, that doesn't really sound like a robbery.

It sounds like a murder.

Yeah, so targeted or is there a serial killer in SS?

The fact that the last murder was totally random and also in a parking garage there makes me wonder.

My spouse’s life was threatened in the Ellsworth garage—but not at gunpoint. The man said he would kill my spouse though. Other people showed up and the man drifted away. I assumed mental illness.

We have not gone back to DTSS since.

Not long our situation, a man was shot there.

That's horrible. Did you/your spouse share that info with the police?

This is not directed at you, per se, but I wish people would call the police. You can call MCPS main number and leave a message -- you don't have to call 911 if you don't feel your life is imminent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

Council members who refer to police as “thugs” and “goons” are absolutely contributing to an anti-police stance coming from the council, as are council members who throw out statements about needing to limit interactions with the police as a way of protecting citizens.

Sure, this is a nationwide problem. Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none. What about highlighting life-saving efforts on the part of the police, which happen daily? Perhaps altering rhetoric to acknowledge all of the good would go a long way to helping recruitment, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

Council members who refer to police as “thugs” and “goons” are absolutely contributing to an anti-police stance coming from the council, as are council members who throw out statements about needing to limit interactions with the police as a way of protecting citizens.

Sure, this is a nationwide problem. Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none. What about highlighting life-saving efforts on the part of the police, which happen daily? Perhaps altering rhetoric to acknowledge all of the good would go a long way to helping recruitment, as well.

Why is it that defenders of the Montgomery County Police Department can't acknowledge that MCPD has problems? "We're totally not as bad as THOSE guys" only takes you so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

Council members who refer to police as “thugs” and “goons” are absolutely contributing to an anti-police stance coming from the council, as are council members who throw out statements about needing to limit interactions with the police as a way of protecting citizens.

Sure, this is a nationwide problem. Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none. What about highlighting life-saving efforts on the part of the police, which happen daily? Perhaps altering rhetoric to acknowledge all of the good would go a long way to helping recruitment, as well.

Why is it that defenders of the Montgomery County Police Department can't acknowledge that MCPD has problems? "We're totally not as bad as THOSE guys" only takes you so far.

Sigh. Nobody fails to acknowledge problems, including me. I just don’t exist entirely in a “police are terrible” realm. I am intimately aware of the good they do, too. Why, to use your question, are critics of MCPD incapable of acknowledging that the department does a tremendous amount of good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

Council members who refer to police as “thugs” and “goons” are absolutely contributing to an anti-police stance coming from the council, as are council members who throw out statements about needing to limit interactions with the police as a way of protecting citizens.

Sure, this is a nationwide problem. Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none. What about highlighting life-saving efforts on the part of the police, which happen daily? Perhaps altering rhetoric to acknowledge all of the good would go a long way to helping recruitment, as well.

Why is it that defenders of the Montgomery County Police Department can't acknowledge that MCPD has problems? "We're totally not as bad as THOSE guys" only takes you so far.

Sigh. Nobody fails to acknowledge problems, including me. I just don’t exist entirely in a “police are terrible” realm. I am intimately aware of the good they do, too. Why, to use your question, are critics of MCPD incapable of acknowledging that the department does a tremendous amount of good?

This you?

Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none.

The County Council, individually and collectively, is constantly praising the Montgomery County Police Department. But somehow the praise-to-criticism ratio still isn't high enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

Council members who refer to police as “thugs” and “goons” are absolutely contributing to an anti-police stance coming from the council, as are council members who throw out statements about needing to limit interactions with the police as a way of protecting citizens.

Sure, this is a nationwide problem. Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none. What about highlighting life-saving efforts on the part of the police, which happen daily? Perhaps altering rhetoric to acknowledge all of the good would go a long way to helping recruitment, as well.

Why is it that defenders of the Montgomery County Police Department can't acknowledge that MCPD has problems? "We're totally not as bad as THOSE guys" only takes you so far.

Sigh. Nobody fails to acknowledge problems, including me. I just don’t exist entirely in a “police are terrible” realm. I am intimately aware of the good they do, too. Why, to use your question, are critics of MCPD incapable of acknowledging that the department does a tremendous amount of good?

Both of you seem to agree but are concerned about different aspects. Why not tone down the rhetoric and find mutually agreeable solutions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

Council members who refer to police as “thugs” and “goons” are absolutely contributing to an anti-police stance coming from the council, as are council members who throw out statements about needing to limit interactions with the police as a way of protecting citizens.

Sure, this is a nationwide problem. Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none. What about highlighting life-saving efforts on the part of the police, which happen daily? Perhaps altering rhetoric to acknowledge all of the good would go a long way to helping recruitment, as well.

Why is it that defenders of the Montgomery County Police Department can't acknowledge that MCPD has problems? "We're totally not as bad as THOSE guys" only takes you so far.

Sigh. Nobody fails to acknowledge problems, including me. I just don’t exist entirely in a “police are terrible” realm. I am intimately aware of the good they do, too. Why, to use your question, are critics of MCPD incapable of acknowledging that the department does a tremendous amount of good?

This you?

Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none.

The County Council, individually and collectively, is constantly praising the Montgomery County Police Department. But somehow the praise-to-criticism ratio still isn't high enough?

Great! Can you please point out a couple of these praises? I watch a lot of the meetings and don’t see them. Perhaps some social media posts to balance out “thugs,” “goons,” and “defund”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

Happily. I linked it above:
“12) Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.” There are plenty of other suggestions that are going to exacerbate crime in DTSS, too, like the suggestion to ignore crimes against society (which includes drugs).
https://ele4a.org/wp-cont...report.pdf

Since traffic stops actually lead to confiscates drugs and guns, including a ton of fentanyl recently, I’m thinking his Step Act is very short sighted.

I'm not the PP but I thought they made a good point about police staffing shortages nationwide, including in places deemed sufficiently "supportive" of law enforcement. How do you square your assertion regarding the Council's culpability in staffing challenges with that nationwide trend?

Moreover, if we understand that the nationwide trend is in part due to people not wanting to be part of an institution that has so publicly discredited itself in recent years, what changes would you suggest that police forces themselves should make to ensure that people want to join?

Council members who refer to police as “thugs” and “goons” are absolutely contributing to an anti-police stance coming from the council, as are council members who throw out statements about needing to limit interactions with the police as a way of protecting citizens.

Sure, this is a nationwide problem. Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none. What about highlighting life-saving efforts on the part of the police, which happen daily? Perhaps altering rhetoric to acknowledge all of the good would go a long way to helping recruitment, as well.

Why is it that defenders of the Montgomery County Police Department can't acknowledge that MCPD has problems? "We're totally not as bad as THOSE guys" only takes you so far.

Sigh. Nobody fails to acknowledge problems, including me. I just don’t exist entirely in a “police are terrible” realm. I am intimately aware of the good they do, too. Why, to use your question, are critics of MCPD incapable of acknowledging that the department does a tremendous amount of good?

This you?

Why is it, however, that this council (and its anti-police friends) can’t acknowledge that we continue to have a model police department in spite of all challenges? Even after the expanded definition of use of force, over 99% of police interactions contain none.

The County Council, individually and collectively, is constantly praising the Montgomery County Police Department. But somehow the praise-to-criticism ratio still isn't high enough?

Great! Can you please point out a couple of these praises? I watch a lot of the meetings and don’t see them. Perhaps some social media posts to balance out “thugs,” “goons,” and “defund”?

“Elrich said that many stories people
around the country hear about police are negative, and that positive stories like this deserve just as much attention.
"You don't hear about this stuff very often.
It's important that this is elevated to the same level that everything else is," Elrich said. "There are a lot of good stories that come out of the department. They deserve to be told."”

https://moco360.media/2023/06/30/elrich-awards-officers-and-others-for-their-bravery-at-cabin-john-creek-on-june-23/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

I think it’s important for the public to understand that there are many ways to fight violent crime, and a significant tool is traffic stops.So when you take things like traffic stops and SROs away, you reduce resources that help prevent violence before they happen. Most of the violence right now is being committed by teens against teens. And nobody has this conversation.

The Council is hyper focused on reducing harms like suspensions in schools or disparate traffic stops, neglecting to see that disparities haven’t fallen, and in some case have increased, since police reform began.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

I think it’s important for the public to understand that there are many ways to fight violent crime, and a significant tool is traffic stops.So when you take things like traffic stops and SROs away, you reduce resources that help prevent violence before they happen. Most of the violence right now is being committed by teens against teens. And nobody has this conversation.

The Council is hyper focused on reducing harms like suspensions in schools or disparate traffic stops, neglecting to see that disparities haven’t fallen, and in some case have increased, since police reform began.

And what we are saying is that many non-violent people have had their lives ruined because of small quantities of drugs found during such searches. I don’t think it is good policy to sacrifice mostly good people just to catch a few bad apples. That is the point here. If you can think of a way that people are not harassed for minor violations while the violent offenders are the ones affected then please tell me because we would all agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

I think it’s important for the public to understand that there are many ways to fight violent crime, and a significant tool is traffic stops.So when you take things like traffic stops and SROs away, you reduce resources that help prevent violence before they happen. Most of the violence right now is being committed by teens against teens. And nobody has this conversation.

The Council is hyper focused on reducing harms like suspensions in schools or disparate traffic stops, neglecting to see that disparities haven’t fallen, and in some case have increased, since police reform began.

And what we are saying is that many non-violent people have had their lives ruined because of small quantities of drugs found during such searches. I don’t think it is good policy to sacrifice mostly good people just to catch a few bad apples. That is the point here. If you can think of a way that people are not harassed for minor violations while the violent offenders are the ones affected then please tell me because we would all agree.

I disagree with that statement. Marijuana has been decriminalized for almost 10 years. Nobody is getting arrested for that and has not for almost a decade.

Nobody is getting harassed for minor
traffic violations in any systemic way. 85% of all traffic stops last less than 5 minutes. 96% total last less than 15 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not typically out at 2:30 am , why would this concern anyone?

OP sounds like a concern troll.

OP here. My concern is that the county government seems to think this level of violence is acceptable. It doesn’t really matter to me where in the county the violence happens. I’d like to have less of it and to see a real discussion among our officials of which policies have failed and what needs to be fixed.

I don't think the council is pro-violence, just they know if they actually get tough on crime, it's going to cause a spike in arrests of young men of certain races, and that will go against their equity goals.

You are making that up out of thin air. None of our elected leaders have ever said such a thing.

DCUM has perfected the art of concern trolling lol.

The county has increased the police budget year over year as well as increased patrols in SS and garages. The new Saturday parking few is specifically designed to pay for increased security. That sounds like they are working on improving security to me.

Pay attention to the council’s actions related to public safety. They have vilified the police force so much over the past three years that the dept is 20% down on officers. Yes, they are throwing money that way because they are trying to correct a problem they created, but they still aren’t able to recruit the numbers they need. People willing to be officers are heading to more supportive counties because this council’s reputation is well known.

Any increased patrols are going to be overworked officers filling vacancies.

I’m a DP and definitely not concern trolling. I’m just one who is going to make sure public safety concerns fall at the feet of the people causing the problem: the council.

I appreciate the time you took to respond. I understand your concerns but I just don’t see any evidence that supports your very narrow conclusions. I see staffing shortages across the country and not just in MoCo or blue districts. How can the council be solely responsible for what is obviously a national trend? Then I see the council raising pay and incentives for hiring more police. That seems like they are responding to the situation like they should. You can’t say they don’t support police when they increased funding. It’s not as simple as you want it to be.

I’ve been watching this develop for several years now. We have a council member who refers to police as “thugs” and “goons” on social media, and has called for defunding more times than one can count. She’s on the public safety committee. The council’s task force suggests reducing staffing by 50% in Wheaton and Silver Spring in order to reduce the public’s contact with the police, which suggests that the police are the problem. (I recommend reading the whole report… all 80+ pages of it. The anti-police stance is very clear.) We have another council member whose current Step Act is (even according to him) about limiting police interactions with those committing minor traffic offenses, in order to protect people from police.

This is me with my eyes WIDE open. No narrow view here.

I would love to see the document that you are citing. Do you have a link? Specifically the part about reducing staffing.

I actually believe that reducing traffic enforcement is a good idea so that police can focus on violent crime.

I think it’s important for the public to understand that there are many ways to fight violent crime, and a significant tool is traffic stops.So when you take things like traffic stops and SROs away, you reduce resources that help prevent violence before they happen. Most of the violence right now is being committed by teens against teens. And nobody has this conversation.

The Council is hyper focused on reducing harms like suspensions in schools or disparate traffic stops, neglecting to see that disparities haven’t fallen, and in some case have increased, since police reform began.

And what we are saying is that many non-violent people have had their lives ruined because of small quantities of drugs found during such searches. I don’t think it is good policy to sacrifice mostly good people just to catch a few bad apples. That is the point here. If you can think of a way that people are not harassed for minor violations while the violent offenders are the ones affected then please tell me because we would all agree.

I disagree with that statement. Marijuana has been decriminalized for almost 10 years. Nobody is getting arrested for that and has not for almost a decade.

Nobody is getting harassed for minor
traffic violations in any systemic way. 85% of all traffic stops last less than 5 minutes. 96% total last less than 15 minutes.

You are advocating for an increase in pre-textual stops which are proven to lead to racial disparities in the level and type of arrests. What would you suggest be done to ensure that officers do not disproportionately stop black drivers if we went in that direction.

In my opinion, if you don’t have a clear answer for that issue then you are not serious about solving the problem.