Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is horrible. I feel like we're trapped in this cycle of talking around and around what is causing the crime increase and how to address it, but in the end aren't doing anything. And the election will have no impact because general elections in DC have almost no impact. None of the top contenders for the at-large seat are going to do anything different than what we have been doing and everyone else was essentially elected in the primary.

It feels so futile.

Stop electing left wing nut jobs who don't care *at all* about crime.

Go back to Alabama

Fact: Charles Allen is actually from Alabama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Allen_(Washington,_D.C.,_politician)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The country is awash in cheap, straw-purchased firearms. It’s only accelerated over the last 5 years.

The more guns = the more deaths.

Ding ding ding!

Yes, Charles Allen sucks. But the guns are the problem.

I think the bigger problem is that our elected officials don't care about crime. They're actually radically reducing penalties for most crimes.

Anonymous wrote:The country is awash in cheap, straw-purchased firearms. It’s only accelerated over the last 5 years.

The more guns = the more deaths.

Ding ding ding!

Yes, Charles Allen sucks. But the guns are the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else get the Charles Allen update email this morning? He basically said that crime is So. Much. Better. This year. So he isn’t going to do anything any differently.

Our city council is so out of touch

I don’t know if “out of touch” is what I would call it. I mean, we are talking about dead kids. The problem with them is clearly more deeply pathological that they refuse to do anything or seemingly to care all that much.

The country is awash in cheap, straw-purchased firearms. It’s only accelerated over the last 5 years.

The more guns = the more deaths.

Weird I thought those of us concerned about crime were just “cherry picking data.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else get the Charles Allen update email this morning? He basically said that crime is So. Much. Better. This year. So he isn’t going to do anything any differently.

Our city council is so out of touch

And he actually LIVES in Ward 6!!!!

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else get the Charles Allen update email this morning? He basically said that crime is So. Much. Better. This year. So he isn’t going to do anything any differently.

Our city council is so out of touch

Did anyone else get the Charles Allen update email this morning? He basically said that crime is So. Much. Better. This year. So he isn’t going to do anything any differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is horrible. I feel like we're trapped in this cycle of talking around and around what is causing the crime increase and how to address it, but in the end aren't doing anything. And the election will have no impact because general elections in DC have almost no impact. None of the top contenders for the at-large seat are going to do anything different than what we have been doing and everyone else was essentially elected in the primary.

It feels so futile.

What do you mean when you say "what we've been doing"?

We've been funding the heck out of police including seemingly unlimited overtime, stocked equipment, etc. But we don't fund out teachers, social workers, or violence interrupters that way. There are people pushing to increase that but it isn't what we have been doing.

Violence interrupters have been funded for several years now, and as you can see the results have not exactly been stellar.

That would be like have 20 police officers in the entire city paid at minimum wage with 1980s equipment and saying "see? We've tried policing, and golly, it's just not effective!"

We're just barely starting with violence interrupters in a limited manner and they do not appear to be funded anywhere near where DC police officers are funded even though they go into much more dangerous situations unprotected.

They aren’t going into dangerous situations in the way police officers are, nor should they be funded in the way police departments are. When someone gets held up at gun point they aren’t calling a violence interruptor, FFS. But keep thinking demonizing the police and wanting violence interruptors used in their place is the answer to crime, and don’t be shocked when the Republican party makes huge gains tomorrow in part because people are over the progressive approach to crime.

A leading Democratic pollster agrees....


How Democrats Mishandled Crime

The most effective issue for Republicans in this midterm is a result of Democratic elites failing to understand what their diverse base of working-class voters wants.

BY STANLEY B. GREENBERG NOVEMBER 3, 2022

https://prospect.org/politics/how-democrats-mishandled-crime/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is horrible. I feel like we're trapped in this cycle of talking around and around what is causing the crime increase and how to address it, but in the end aren't doing anything. And the election will have no impact because general elections in DC have almost no impact. None of the top contenders for the at-large seat are going to do anything different than what we have been doing and everyone else was essentially elected in the primary.

It feels so futile.

What do you mean when you say "what we've been doing"?

We've been funding the heck out of police including seemingly unlimited overtime, stocked equipment, etc. But we don't fund out teachers, social workers, or violence interrupters that way. There are people pushing to increase that but it isn't what we have been doing.

Violence interrupters have been funded for several years now, and as you can see the results have not exactly been stellar.

That would be like have 20 police officers in the entire city paid at minimum wage with 1980s equipment and saying "see? We've tried policing, and golly, it's just not effective!"

We're just barely starting with violence interrupters in a limited manner and they do not appear to be funded anywhere near where DC police officers are funded even though they go into much more dangerous situations unprotected.

They aren’t going into dangerous situations in the way police officers are, nor should they be funded in the way police departments are. When someone gets held up at gun point they aren’t calling a violence interruptor, FFS. But keep thinking demonizing the police and wanting violence interruptors used in their place is the answer to crime, and don’t be shocked when the Republican party makes huge gains tomorrow in part because people are over the progressive approach to crime.

I am sorry did you miss the 6 lawsuits today?

Republicans are liars they defund the police all on their own. For one Trump never paid one police dept accross this country when he does visits or rallies millions of $ that now the police budgets have to make up.

DeSantis has Oath Keepers as his private police that is not support the police

9/11 First responders fund Trump and co stole $4 million before people screamed for them to stop. Please enlighten us on how dems are defunding the police bec facts count and so does math.

On Jan 6th Republicans made it very clear when they hurt 140 police officers that is not the party that supports the police. Ask Officer Harry Dunn he is a hero your people should not even walk this earth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is horrible. I feel like we're trapped in this cycle of talking around and around what is causing the crime increase and how to address it, but in the end aren't doing anything. And the election will have no impact because general elections in DC have almost no impact. None of the top contenders for the at-large seat are going to do anything different than what we have been doing and everyone else was essentially elected in the primary.

It feels so futile.

What do you mean when you say "what we've been doing"?

We've been funding the heck out of police including seemingly unlimited overtime, stocked equipment, etc. But we don't fund out teachers, social workers, or violence interrupters that way. There are people pushing to increase that but it isn't what we have been doing.

Violence interrupters have been funded for several years now, and as you can see the results have not exactly been stellar.

That would be like have 20 police officers in the entire city paid at minimum wage with 1980s equipment and saying "see? We've tried policing, and golly, it's just not effective!"

We're just barely starting with violence interrupters in a limited manner and they do not appear to be funded anywhere near where DC police officers are funded even though they go into much more dangerous situations unprotected.

They aren’t going into dangerous situations in the way police officers are, nor should they be funded in the way police departments are. When someone gets held up at gun point they aren’t calling a violence interruptor, FFS. But keep thinking demonizing the police and wanting violence interruptors used in their place is the answer to crime, and don’t be shocked when the Republican party makes huge gains tomorrow in part because people are over the progressive approach to crime.

Going to meet with people who are likely to commit violence is not dangerous? Please, come closer to reality. Have you ever met these people??

Having worked in law enforcement for years (I’m not a police officer) yes, I have, and “meeting” people who are likely to commit violence isn’t doing jack to prevent crime, as evidenced by the current state of the District. When young people think they are untouchable because they have never been held accountable for their behavior/criminal activity, you think some violence interruptor is going to miraculously make them see the error of their ways? Come on, maybe you need to get in touch with reality.

This is terrible news, and a tragedy, and yet I'm not sure it all boils down to "tell D.C. to spend more on policing." There are similar trends all over the country, including in jurisdictions that made no cuts to their police budgets or their approach to crime.

I agree there's a need for policy changes to figure out a way to deal with an unacceptable situation, I just don't know what those policy changes really ought to be.

Anonymous wrote:This is horrible. I feel like we're trapped in this cycle of talking around and around what is causing the crime increase and how to address it, but in the end aren't doing anything. And the election will have no impact because general elections in DC have almost no impact. None of the top contenders for the at-large seat are going to do anything different than what we have been doing and everyone else was essentially elected in the primary.

It feels so futile.

stop electing city council people who are pillow soft on crime

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is horrible. I feel like we're trapped in this cycle of talking around and around what is causing the crime increase and how to address it, but in the end aren't doing anything. And the election will have no impact because general elections in DC have almost no impact. None of the top contenders for the at-large seat are going to do anything different than what we have been doing and everyone else was essentially elected in the primary.

It feels so futile.

What do you mean when you say "what we've been doing"?

We've been funding the heck out of police including seemingly unlimited overtime, stocked equipment, etc. But we don't fund out teachers, social workers, or violence interrupters that way. There are people pushing to increase that but it isn't what we have been doing.

Violence interrupters have been funded for several years now, and as you can see the results have not exactly been stellar.

That would be like have 20 police officers in the entire city paid at minimum wage with 1980s equipment and saying "see? We've tried policing, and golly, it's just not effective!"

We're just barely starting with violence interrupters in a limited manner and they do not appear to be funded anywhere near where DC police officers are funded even though they go into much more dangerous situations unprotected.

They aren’t going into dangerous situations in the way police officers are, nor should they be funded in the way police departments are. When someone gets held up at gun point they aren’t calling a violence interruptor, FFS. But keep thinking demonizing the police and wanting violence interruptors used in their place is the answer to crime, and don’t be shocked when the Republican party makes huge gains tomorrow in part because people are over the progressive approach to crime.

Going to meet with people who are likely to commit violence is not dangerous? Please, come closer to reality. Have you ever met these people??