Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have "Vision Zero" for bicyclists getting hit by cars (which is very rare). How about "Vision Zero" for murder?

Because a Vision Zero for violent crime would be deemed racist, as it would target only one group of people. It's why the Vision Zero for traffic deaths is so ineffective: Human traffic stops -- a provable way to make the roads safer for everyone -- have been deemed racist so we don't do them anymore. Instead, we have cameras issuing tickets that drivers from Maryland and Virginia can safely ignore.

Vision Zero isn't failing because of a lack of traffic stops. Vision Zero is failing because drivers whine incessantly and throw tantrums about having to navigate bike lanes, ceding the right of way to pedestrians, losing parking spots, and having to drive slower, and so none of the physical changes we need to make roads safer are implemented.

Yes, it is. Studies have shown that the best deterrence to unsafe drivers is punishment that is swift and certain, like the kind that comes from human traffic stops. Camera tickets might be swift, but if you don't have to pay the fine, it doesn't matter.

And the massive changes coming to 16th Street and Connecticut Avenue disprove your notion that drivers have the power to stymie any and all changes.

Anonymous wrote:D.C. has the largest police force, on a per capita basis, in the country. And yet...

So much corruption in local DC politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have "Vision Zero" for bicyclists getting hit by cars (which is very rare). How about "Vision Zero" for murder?

Because a Vision Zero for violent crime would be deemed racist, as it would target only one group of people. It's why the Vision Zero for traffic deaths is so ineffective: Human traffic stops -- a provable way to make the roads safer for everyone -- have been deemed racist so we don't do them anymore. Instead, we have cameras issuing tickets that drivers from Maryland and Virginia can safely ignore.

Vision Zero isn't failing because of a lack of traffic stops. Vision Zero is failing because drivers whine incessantly and throw tantrums about having to navigate bike lanes, ceding the right of way to pedestrians, losing parking spots, and having to drive slower, and so none of the physical changes we need to make roads safer are implemented.

Anonymous wrote:Makes you wonder what all these cops do all day, if they're not enforcing laws.

They make arrests then show up at trial to watch the prosecutors let them go free. Then they respond to complaints about their arrest etc.

Anonymous wrote:Makes you wonder what all these cops do all day, if they're not enforcing laws.

They make the arrests, but there is no appetite in this jurisdiction for meaningful consequences. And the criminals know it.

Makes you wonder what all these cops do all day, if they're not enforcing laws.

Anonymous wrote:Move. They will only care when their tax base leaves. Even then, they might not care unless it gets so bad Congress takes over their budget again.

Yes, this.

D.C. has the largest police force, on a per capita basis, in the country. And yet...

Move. They will only care when their tax base leaves. Even then, they might not care unless it gets so bad Congress takes over their budget again.

Anonymous wrote:We have "Vision Zero" for bicyclists getting hit by cars (which is very rare). How about "Vision Zero" for murder?

Because a Vision Zero for violent crime would be deemed racist, as it would target only one group of people. It's why the Vision Zero for traffic deaths is so ineffective: Human traffic stops -- a provable way to make the roads safer for everyone -- have been deemed racist so we don't do them anymore. Instead, we have cameras issuing tickets that drivers from Maryland and Virginia can safely ignore.

I’ll save everyone some time and just say crime prevention takes a backseat to progressive criminal justice policy in furtherance of equity goals.

Essentially, the arrest statistics are so bad, and there is such a focus on not tearing away fathers from families or arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating teens, even if they commit violent crimes over and over again, that nothing of substance will be done.

Sure we’ll have politicians paying for “violence interruptors” and other rackets which studies prove don’t work, we’ll have restorative justice, and we’ll have lenient DAs who will focus on “harm reduction”, but this is all in the face of rising crime. Everyone knows just cracking down, tough policing and prison are the best deterrents, and actually work, but we’re in a new era where everything needs to spiral note out of control than it already has, before any policies that seriously deter crime are enacted. And now now cue up the social justice warrior posters who can’t believe how incentive i am. You can read the studies. They all show prison is the best deterrent for violent crime. Stop and frisk worked. Everyone hands are tied now and we just have to watch more puppies get robbed from people at gun point, teens car jacking cars to go on intagram joy rides without punishment and all the other. I’m sure Charles Allen will retool the Youth Rehabilitation Act again to revise the age it covers up to 34.

Anonymous wrote:https://nypost.com/2022/04/18/dc-men-released-without-charges-after-stealing-puppy-at-gunpoint/

They need to be able to link the people with the crime. Just being found with the puppy isn't enough. All they have to do is say they found it wandering alone on the street after the real criminals abandoned it. It might even be true! Notice that the distinct looking rescue mutt was found, not the expensive French bulldog.

We have "Vision Zero" for bicyclists getting hit by cars (which is very rare). How about "Vision Zero" for murder?

It's like every ridiculous stereotype about Democrats being soft on crime is actually 100 percent true here.