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.

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.

Conversely, what would you suggest be done to prevent people from being shot in parking garages?

Why is confiscating every gun in Montgomery County a non-starter? It would work. And thanks to gun registration during purchase, which has been state law for decades, we already know where they are. So why are we not doing it?

Get the guns. All of them. Everything else is secondary to that.

Legal guns aren’t the problem. And those are the only ones where we know location/ownership.

Additionally, a huge number of guns and gun violence is being committed here by non Montgomery County residents.

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.

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.

Conversely, what would you suggest be done to prevent people from being shot in parking garages?

Why is confiscating every gun in Montgomery County a non-starter? It would work. And thanks to gun registration during purchase, which has been state law for decades, we already know where they are. So why are we not doing it?

Get the guns. All of them. Everything else is secondary to that.

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.

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.

Conversely, what would you suggest be done to prevent people from being shot in parking garages?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.