This was way too far down the article and is the main reason why:
The real reasons are more disturbing. Lack of cooperation from witnesses and victims’ families, especially in high-crime communities, points to a profound breakdown of trust between the police and the public they are sworn to serve and protect.
When citizens no longer believe the police will deliver justice, they will not risk their own safety to assist in investigations. And the challenges in investigating certain types of murders, such as those involving drugs, gangs, or domestic violence], is a damning admission that police have essentially ceded entire neighborhoods to the rule of the gun and the knife.
It’s as simple as that. Crimes aren’t getting solved because people don’t trust cops anymore.
It is not that simple. There is also the fact that police have a harder time blaming minorities for everything, because society has become less overtly racist, and that means difficult cases without witnesses are also harder to solve.
Crimes aren’t getting solved because people don’t trust cops anymore.
The issue is blaming anyone except our cops…
And unless you haven’t noticed, cops werent the nicest to some people back in the 60s either.
But back then cops (and our judicial system) were even more problematic.
Sure, they were arresting people for murder, but we don’t know if they were arresting murderers. No DNA and no cell records made it harder to catch criminals, but it made it really really hard to clear an innocent person’s name.
You can’t just look at surface numbers and take them at face value
But in “drugs, gangs, and domestic violence” areas, people never trusted the cops. Domestic violence was considered a private matter between husband and wife. Gangs have always ruled entire neighborhoods. People involved with drugs are usually hard to get to because they’re protecting their supply, their freedom, or their income. Is the author basing this opinion on some idealized Adam-12 / Dragnet view of the past? Because I lived through it, and it certainly wasn’t like that.
I grew up just outside south Detroit. Those network television shows were nuts. It was the 90s. Crime was everywhere in Detroit. This was the era of hundreds of buildings being burned on devils night, and every single crime was done by the same guy. I remember his description clearly. 5’9-6’. Short hair. Between the ages of 20-35.
See, the issue here is not the fact that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect people, it’s the fact that the site you decided to get that information from is from a group of people who oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, which gives less protection to people.
Also, are those two links really the best you can do? Because this took me seconds:
I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.
You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.
And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?
Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true
correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?
Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.
This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.
I didn’t parrot misinformation because I never said cops had a constitutional duty to protect you and neither did the quote. The quote said they swore to protect and serve the public. Now if you wished to correct that, you did not do so.
This was way too far down the article and is the main reason why:
It’s as simple as that. Crimes aren’t getting solved because people don’t trust cops anymore.
The beatings will continue until cooperation improves.
It is not that simple. There is also the fact that police have a harder time blaming minorities for everything, because society has become less overtly racist, and that means difficult cases without witnesses are also harder to solve.
Hence my saying that’s the main reason and not the only reason. The article’s links back that up.
The issue is blaming anyone except our cops…
And unless you haven’t noticed, cops werent the nicest to some people back in the 60s either.
But back then cops (and our judicial system) were even more problematic.
Sure, they were arresting people for murder, but we don’t know if they were arresting murderers. No DNA and no cell records made it harder to catch criminals, but it made it really really hard to clear an innocent person’s name.
You can’t just look at surface numbers and take them at face value
But in “drugs, gangs, and domestic violence” areas, people never trusted the cops. Domestic violence was considered a private matter between husband and wife. Gangs have always ruled entire neighborhoods. People involved with drugs are usually hard to get to because they’re protecting their supply, their freedom, or their income. Is the author basing this opinion on some idealized Adam-12 / Dragnet view of the past? Because I lived through it, and it certainly wasn’t like that.
It’s because police can’t be trusted. And wile that was probably always the case, they lost all pretense of protect and serve now.
I don’t disagree. I remember poor Rodney King.
Well, that and there’s a lot more exonerating evidence so the cops can’t just say “this Black drifter did it” as much anymore.
I grew up just outside south Detroit. Those network television shows were nuts. It was the 90s. Crime was everywhere in Detroit. This was the era of hundreds of buildings being burned on devils night, and every single crime was done by the same guy. I remember his description clearly. 5’9-6’. Short hair. Between the ages of 20-35.
I grew up in “north Detroit” (Oakland County 🤣) and remember the same things. It’s amazing that Devil’s Night isn’t a thing anymore.
Also, being from Oakland County, you can imagine how people reacted when I went to Wayne State.
Your quote from the article contains a faulty premise:
Police are not obligated to protect the public.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
Mises? Yeah, not giving those libertarian fucks a single click.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Ok here is a paywalled NYT article then.
See, the issue here is not the fact that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect people, it’s the fact that the site you decided to get that information from is from a group of people who oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, which gives less protection to people.
Also, are those two links really the best you can do? Because this took me seconds:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.
You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.
And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?
Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true
correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?
Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.
This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.
I didn’t parrot misinformation because I never said cops had a constitutional duty to protect you and neither did the quote. The quote said they swore to protect and serve the public. Now if you wished to correct that, you did not do so.
Ok, fair, I apologize.