Thoughts on Will Jawando

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

Speed cameras are actually about safety.

the one on Norbeck road isn’t. There’s never been accidents where it’s placed. Norbeck/Avery there are accidents occasionally but we don’t see a camera there….. it’s about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

Speed cameras are actually about safety.

the one on Norbeck road isn’t. There’s never been accidents where it’s placed. Norbeck/Avery there are accidents occasionally but we don’t see a camera there….. it’s about money.

Yes, it is. Don't speed. Then you won't have to worry about the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am very progressive left and I don’t like him. He seems like he just has opinions without doing the research or work to support them. Also does not come off as genuine. Not a fan.

Yup. Same for me. I liked him earlier in his career but he has been a disappointment since then.

[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:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

They are a toll on dangerous drivers who drive 12 mph or more over the speed limit. Fortunately, you can avoid the toll - by not speeding.

I agree it’s a toll glad you agree it’s a toll.

It’s not a safety measure though, once again glad we agree.

It's a toll on dangerous drivers. It's a safety measure. Don't speed.

No it’s not it’s never prevented an accident.

[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:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

They are a toll on dangerous drivers who drive 12 mph or more over the speed limit. Fortunately, you can avoid the toll - by not speeding.

I agree it’s a toll glad you agree it’s a toll.

It’s not a safety measure though, once again glad we agree.

I’m a DP. The data supports they are safety measures. See my quote (and related link) a couple of posts ago.

Arguing against public safety is why many on this thread won’t vote for Jawando. Making roads less safe isn’t a popular option.

Nothing being proposed makes roads less safe.

The link does not support your assertion.

None of these things actually promote safe roads.

[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:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

“The researchers also looked at crashes on camera-eligible roads in Montgomery County, relative to comparison roads in Virginia. They found that the cameras resulted in a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality or an incapacitating injury, as reported by a police officer on the scene.”
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-cameras-reduce-injury-crashes-in-maryland-county-iihs-study-shows#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20cameras,police%20officer%20on%20the%20scene.

Do you understand the article? It did not reduce crashes. It does not say that.

“Overall, the county's camera program in its current form — including the use of corridors and a minor enforcement change that took effect in 2009 — reduces the likelihood of fatal or incapacitating injuries by 39 percent on residential roads with speed limits of 25-35 mph. The estimate of 21,000 fatal or incapacitating injuries that cameras could prevent nationwide is based on that reduction.”

If you’re concerned about a minute detail, the article clearly shows that they dramatically reduce the severity of injuries and the likelihood of death. I’d say that’s a win for traffic safety. The alternative is more injuries and additional deaths?

Again. Fighting safety is not a good look here on DCUM or for a politician.

You still do not understand the article or what you posted.

Cameras could prevent accidents is not the same as cameras did prevent accidents

Cameras are likely to prevent accidents is not the same as cameras did prevent accidents.

If you take data from the roads with cameras accidents have not been reduced. It’s simple math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

Speed cameras are actually about safety.

the one on Norbeck road isn’t. There’s never been accidents where it’s placed. Norbeck/Avery there are accidents occasionally but we don’t see a camera there….. it’s about money.

Yes, it is. Don't speed. Then you won't have to worry about the money.

At least you admit it’s about money and not safety

[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:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Exactly I’m not willing to play what if with lives and since we know these stops hurt lives… well then we agree.

Cops chance procedures all the time. Fleeing felon laws for example. Stop procedures change every year. You’ve just decided to jump on “this is political” game.

The speed cameras have not saved 1 life they are a revenue source, they are a toll. Call them what they are.

“The researchers also looked at crashes on camera-eligible roads in Montgomery County, relative to comparison roads in Virginia. They found that the cameras resulted in a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality or an incapacitating injury, as reported by a police officer on the scene.”
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-cameras-reduce-injury-crashes-in-maryland-county-iihs-study-shows#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20cameras,police%20officer%20on%20the%20scene.

Do you understand the article? It did not reduce crashes. It does not say that.

“Overall, the county's camera program in its current form — including the use of corridors and a minor enforcement change that took effect in 2009 — reduces the likelihood of fatal or incapacitating injuries by 39 percent on residential roads with speed limits of 25-35 mph. The estimate of 21,000 fatal or incapacitating injuries that cameras could prevent nationwide is based on that reduction.”

If you’re concerned about a minute detail, the article clearly shows that they dramatically reduce the severity of injuries and the likelihood of death. I’d say that’s a win for traffic safety. The alternative is more injuries and additional deaths?

Again. Fighting safety is not a good look here on DCUM or for a politician.

You still do not understand the article or what you posted.

Cameras could prevent accidents is not the same as cameras did prevent accidents

Cameras are likely to prevent accidents is not the same as cameras did prevent accidents.

If you take data from the roads with cameras accidents have not been reduced. It’s simple math.

You're complaining that the study didn't count things that didn't happen. Take your foot off the accelerator and stop speeding.

[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:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

Speed cameras are actually about safety.

the one on Norbeck road isn’t. There’s never been accidents where it’s placed. Norbeck/Avery there are accidents occasionally but we don’t see a camera there….. it’s about money.

Yes, it is. Don't speed. Then you won't have to worry about the money.

At least you admit it’s about money and not safety

It's about safety. YOU are complaining about the money. Who complains about the money? People who got citations BECAUSE THEY WERE SPEEDING. Stop speeding. That will solve your problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope. He destroyed mcps.

Agree. He is simply terrible. He is an arrogant, self-serving fool.

I think he'll have a good chance of winning in this area, but he certainly doesn't have my vote. Cannot stand him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

So, if Jawando doesn't want the police to enforce public safety laws, then why should anyone follow these laws? Clearly, Jawando thinks they are nbd, so the cops shouldn't enforce them.

Are you suggesting that Jawando doesn't care if people break laws?

That is true of so many of our liberal, progressive political leaders in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

So, if Jawando doesn't want the police to enforce public safety laws, then why should anyone follow these laws? Clearly, Jawando thinks they are nbd, so the cops shouldn't enforce them.

Are you suggesting that Jawando doesn't care if people break laws?

That is true of so many of our liberal, progressive political leaders in Montgomery County.

Truth. Progressives think the criminals are the most victimized of all. And care nothing for actual victims. Nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it help to reduce the "crime surge" if police are allowed to pull drivers over for window tinting?

I mean, I think Jawando's bill is a bad idea because it will make the roads less safe. However, I don't think it will increase the numbers of bank robberies and homicides.

Yes, it will help. Turns out that the type of person that makes illegal modifications to their car is the same type of person who often has outstanding warrants. The same thing goes for enforcing fare evasion.

"Hi, I pulled you over because I decided your car windows are too dark, and therefore I want to check whether you have outstanding warrants." is not the kind of thing that increases public trust in the police. Just saying.

Except the police officer didn't "decide" the windows were too dark. Legislators did that and if you don't like the law you should speak to your legislator.

+1 why do we have these laws if they don't want the police to enforce it. Stupid. Just remove the laws, then.

Some of these things are safety issues.

Working lights, having your lights on in heavy rain, in the dark..

The windshield wiper, glaring high beams, also a safety issue.

Window tinting.. so, a rapist/thief/car jacker should just ride in a heavy tinted car. Cops won't pull you over for it. Great way to hide.

We have laws for public safety, and Jawando doesn't seem to care about public safety.

Yes, they are road safety issues. They are not crime issues.

DP.
I suspect that was the PP’s point. We agree those are road safety issues, and Jawando is proposing we simply ignore them. The PP’s argument that Jawando doesn’t care about public safety? This bill demonstrates that.

Montgomery County is also combatting pedestrian deaths with Vision Zero. This bill flies in the face of that effort.

It’s does not demonstrate that, if we ignore those things and crime decreases and accidents don’t increase then they were never, ever, ever, really about safety.

Just like speed cameras, are they actually about safety? How many lives were saved due to speed cameras?

I’m not comfortable playing “if” with public safety. Jawando, Riemer, and Elrich did that with SROs, essentially risking student safety on a hunch. They were wrong, and SROs are now back. I’m not going to support an “if” hunch that can contribute to pedestrian death and additional traffic accidents.

And speed cameras? They are clear deterrents. We need standards and expectations on roads. That keeps us all safe.

Yup. Crime happens because of opportunity and lack of consequences. Minor and major crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. He destroyed mcps.

Agree. He is simply terrible. He is an arrogant, self-serving fool.

I think he'll have a good chance of winning in this area, but he certainly doesn't have my vote. Cannot stand him.

I dont think he has a good chance of winning a state wide race against people with more accomplishments, more name recognition, and way more money.

I really don't see a way for him to win at all, which makes me think its some sort of "get his name out there" campaign for some future race. All I can figure.

[Anonymous]

One of his biggest hurdles will be to overcome his defund the police stance, or appearance of defunding. The police. This is from the Washington Post article. There’s some nuance in what he said, but this is what he’s up against. With Montgomery county crime going up, this will not help him state wide. Democrats need to get behind a solid candidate.

“We need to invest in our communities, and we need to disinvest from the things that give us these horrible outcomes in policing,” Jawando continued. “That’s what ‘defund the police’ means to me.”
He paused, allowing the applause to rise, then quiet.
“And I support it. I do.”
Celesete Donawa, 31, swept her braids to her back and cheered. This was the first time she had heard any official utter the words “defund the police,” she said. She had not known of Jawando until that point. Now, she wanted to hear more from him.“
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/will-jawando-defund-police/2020/06/19/aa3f5126-abfc-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html