FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Open chat

Topic: Police, Police Vehicles or the Hummer

  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
TJBear
Guest

I have been pondering this all day. The city of Flint just keeps getting more and more news about how lucky we are to be so close to the top of the list for crime in the Nation. I’ve been beating this drum into the ground. No matter what my personal feelings are toward the Flint Police dept. (because of their ineffectiveness in fighting crime.) The fact remains. Flint needs more officers! Flint needs more jail space! Officers do deserve a contract! They may even possibly deserve raise (at least with the cost of living.) The former city council had approved some time ago the hiring of at least 8 new police officers. From what I understand not one has been hired since the approval. We just approved 1.2 million for the city attorney (I wonder how long it will take for that money to be spent.) Then we spent around 532,000 for some new police vehicles. The 2005 Chevy Tahoe. Now don’t get me wrong, I think these are some great vehicles. I’m just a bit concerned about their effectiveness at fighting crime. I’m sure they drive well. I mean they go down the road, have AC, good brakes, and such. However, Don’t we need crime fighters? You know, detectives that detect and investigate crimes. I’ve had two thoughts on this.

First, maybe if we reached number one in the nation, in crime or even just number one in violent crime. We could then buy Escalades. Slap some dubs on them (22 inch wheels) and a dope stereo system. Then maybe our police could infiltrate the criminal element in the city of flint. I decided against that idea out. Since in the last two years I’ve count twelve officers arrested or charged with beatings, attempted rape and/or drugs. So maybe giving them an escalade, that looks like a pimp-mobile wouldn’t be such a good idea.

My second thought, that if Chevy Tahoe’s is what we need instead of more police officers. Than maybe, I “just don’t get it.” Obviously, it is because they are such outstanding crime fighting vehicles. (Taking that into consideration.) If, the Chevy Tahoe is what we need to fight crime in Flint. Maybe we could find a better vehicle. One, capable of fighting additional crimes. I believe we can. We should equip the Flint police dept with brand new Hummers. After all, they are military vehicles. This should be the far superior choice as a crime-fighting weapon. They are, after all, built to go into battle. The Hummer has already proven itself in Urban Warfare. They have never been convicted or accused of any crime, except maybe taking more of it’s share of gasoline at the pump. Hummers, have been credited for saving quite a few lives over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hummers have excellent stopping power also. I mean, If one pulled you over, and had it’s 50-cal machine gun pointing at you. Wouldn’t you say “yes sir” and “no sir” to the Hummer when it pulled you over?

So I guess, in conclusion, that, if we must fight crime by purchasing effective police vehicles. Instead of hiring additional officers. I believe we should be hiring,.. I mean purchasing, Hummers instead of Tahoes. They have a better record of getting the job done. Oh, and I’ve never had a Hummer give me a dumb look, then respond with “well what do you want me to do about it?” The Hummer knows it’s job and is willing to get it done.
Post Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:04 am 
   Reply with quote  
MySearchisOver.com
Guest

I assume the mayor will be smart enought to hire police with the surplus. Just having police does not solve crime though if no one will give police the tips they need.
Post Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:14 pm 
   Reply with quote  
tjbear101
Guest

Well, I wish it was as simple as giving the police a tip. I'm assuming you really mean Money. As that still won't make a difference. http://www.cityofflint.net/Crime.htm Read the link provided and tell me what more someone could do to get the police dept to take action. If you can find something I've missed, someone i should have talked to, Someone that really cares and has integrity to actually do something, I'll be more than happy to talk to them.. I'm just hoping, That since the Old city council had budgeted monies for 8 new police officers LAST YEAR that maybe with some new Cop cars we could get one or two that are willing to do more than give you a dumb look an say "well what do you want me to do about it?"
Post Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:38 pm 
   Reply with quote  
TJBear
Guest

Ok here it is. I wish to just mention from my previous posts about the purchase of 14 new Chevy Tahoes compared to 14 New Chevy Impalas. I knew this information would available online somewhere.

Chevy Tahoe Lifetime Cost: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/chevrolet/tahoe/100570064/cto.html

Chevy Imapala SS lifetime cost: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/chevrolet/impala/100550667/cto.html

I thought that this was supposed to save the city money. That was the argument that was given by the Police Cheif and Mayors office. The savings for having the Impala over the Tahoe is at least 12,693 dollars. That is not a savings. Unless your using Williamson Math!

And on a side note. No the city council in the admended budget did not hire any more additional police officers. Nor has the Mayor hired the additional 8 that were budgeted last year. But we did add 1.2 million to the City attorney’s office. I can't wait to see the City attorney out fighting crime in Flint and helping get us off the TOP TEM list for every negative crime statistic out there.
Post Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:47 pm 
   Reply with quote  
snappajack
Guest

What does Flint need to protect it's streets, A flint-based/built vehicle! Which ever vehicle is built, using the most flint built products would be my answer. I think the Impala police ed would be nice on Flint streets, besides they already have Tahoes as backup "state trucks are Tahoes" besides the Impala has a flint built engine, hmmm does anyone know what the tahoe is built? I guessing maybe texas, i know the cadillac truck is built outside of Arlington. o' and the money they would have saved by not buying the tahoe could be used to pay for more man hrs on the police force
Post Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:07 pm 
   Reply with quote  
Ted Jankowski
Guest

New letter to be sent to Mayor, City Council and Flint Journal. Just posted on http://www.cityofflint.net/hoodwinked.htm
Post Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:53 am 
   Reply with quote  
Guest


Flint wouldn't need so many officers, if we had moe jobs here. These officers do not need any kind of special vehicle. The officers are already currupt as it is.
Post Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:01 am 
   Reply with quote  
Ted Jankowski
Guest

Personally, I don't buy into the idea that Less Jobs means more people committing crime. I think it would be interesting to see what the crime rate was in this area during the depression. Back when nobody had anything and there were a lot more people living here. Just because you are poor it doesn't make you criminal. Desire for something someone else has, isn't because you don't have a job. Now as for the Police dept. There are many excuses, no contract, low wages, inadequate jails, weak punishment by the courts. These are all excuses for providing lackluster performance. I used to at least attempt to sympathize with their plight. I wouldn't do what they do, especially, at what they get paid. However after having been broken into so many times and having over lost well over 15,000 dollars worth of items, family heirlooms, etc over ten years of living in the City, and the most I’ve ever gotten out of Police is “Well what do you want me to do about it.” I lack any Sympathy. Now, they did take the job and they swear an oath. Just as when I was in the Corps. Like it or not. Get past it and do your job to your best ability. Response from the Police such as "well what do you want me to do about?" and "why would we do that?" are not conductive to relations between the Police and public. Now back to the theme of this Post. Driving around in Tahoe, that cost the City more to purchase, More to maintain, have a lower safety rating, purchased from an outside the city dealership, reeks of a political pay off. While I cannot figure out how it might fit in. Or as to who is being paid off. It just doesn't make sense to spend our tax dollars outside the city when this city is in such bad shape. We should be supporting businesses that have stayed in Flint despite the lack of city services. We should be spending money wisely, and not making up outrageous claims as to how much money we are saving by buying these vehicles when IN FACT they will cost us much more. Then try to cover it up by saying they are a safer vehicle when again, the FACTS don't even come close to supporting this idea. Safety for the Tahoe 4 stars and not completely testing for all impacts. Impala 5 stars and completely tested. Tahoe, high rollover rate. Impala, NO ROLLOVER rate. Tahoe 144 ft braking at 60mph. Impala 136 ft at 60mph. The data doesn't support anything the Administration has said in regards to this purchase. Hell, we don't even know if we got the best deal on these Tahoes, since it was never put up for Bid.
Post Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:36 pm 
   Reply with quote  
Ted Jankowski
Guest

One more thought!
Ya know, Applegate Chevrolet has remained in Flint. Even though they have had vehicles broken into and items stolen out of them on a regular basis. Then our Mayor and City Council thank them for staying by not even letting them bid on the contract for the Tahoes. I don't understand why people do not see this as a big problem. The dealerships do not make much off these government fleet sales. So they could not have been that much more had they been given the opportunity to bid. By passing the charter I thought was illegal. But, it's been happening so much lately I don't know why even need the charter is the Council and Mayor are not going to follow it.
Post Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:32 pm 
   Reply with quote  
Wittgenstein's Poker
Guest

Ted you may not "buy" into the idea that less jobs equal more crime, but you are absolutely wrong. All empirical criminological data shows exactly that fact. It took me no less than 3 seconds to find scholarly support via Google academic:

http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/LUDWIGediforweb2-7-2000.PDF


Poverty may not "cause" crime per say, but the only reason for this lack of strict causation is the abundance of statistically significant correlations between several key index factors and crime (i.e. there are many, equally important contributory factors).
Post Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:40 pm 
   Reply with quote  
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D

Yeah and I'll bet on the internet you can find in three seconds support for anything you believe. That's the same as saying People with bad credit cause more accidents. There is no way to prove that. Or people with bad credit should pay more in Home insurance because they are more likely to get struck by lightening. The argument makes no sense. Did you ever think that it might be the way people are raised that has an impact on crime? People raised to believe that every one owes them, or that there is not any consequences for their actions, may play some role in it? Maybe it is because they didn't have a father growing up? How many people in Prison were raised by their mother. 70 percent or better depending on the study finds that most inmates were not raised in a two parent home. So why isn't this the reason for crime?? All these studies draw conclusions based on only the evidence they wanted you to have. To say that poverty causes crime is illogical. When I was growing up my father worked two full time jobs. When my parents first got married we didn't have much. We ate a lot of tomato soup and grilled cheese sandwiches. Never once growing up did it cross my mind to go into a store to steal a candy bar or bag of potato chips. Mom said no. That was final. The neighbor kid. CHOSE to lead a life of crime. He could have continued on with school, He could have got a job and worked his way up. He had a job. But didn’t like the way he was treated. So, instead he is determined to end up in Prison. Breaking into cars and stealing stereos for drugs is not because he doesn't have a job. It's because he doesn't want to work. He wouldn’t be in poverty if he didn't waste what little money he gets from stolen property on drugs. Yep. poverty makes you a thief or a criminal.
So using that argument. That Poverty is the cause of Crime. Then everyone unemployed is a criminal. So then when you loose your job or don't work we should just go ahead and arrest you because your a criminal. That's ignorance. But it is the end result of your argument. More jobs and higher wages just means better Pickens for criminals. Not more jobs makes less criminals. Criminals congregate to poverty areas because Police enforcement is lackadaisical at best. They can get away with more.
Post Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:06 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  Reply with quote  
Wittgenstein's Poker
Guest

“Yeah and I'll bet on the internet you can find in three seconds support for anything you believe.”

It isn’t what I believe, it is what the evidence shows. A fact is not invalidated because someone does or does not believe it.

“That's the same as saying People with bad credit cause more accidents. There is no way to prove that.”

You see, you mistake correlation for causation. There is scientifically significant proof, through statistical evidence, that poverty is one of the many causal (not correlational) factors of crime.

“Did you ever think that it might be the way people are raised that has an impact on crime? People raised to believe that every one owes them, or that there is not any consequences for their actions, may play some role in it?”

I am also certain, based on empirical evidence, that socio-psychological factors cause crime. That isn’t the claim at issue. You claimed that poverty does not cause crime, which is blatantly false.

“To say that poverty causes crime is illogical. When I was growing up my father worked two full time jobs…”

Personal testimony is not evidence.

“So using that argument. That Poverty is the cause of Crime. Then everyone unemployed is a criminal. So then when you loose your job or don't work we should just go ahead and arrest you because your a criminal.”

Once again, you are mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. It is not necessary that poverty is present for crime, but poverty being present is sufficient to cause crime. No one believes in strict criminological determinism.

If you still believe that poverty does not cause crime, pick up the phone and call any criminologist at Mott, University of Michigan-Flint, or any other local college. They will tell you the same. But let me guess—you won’t believe what a scientist says. I’m sure you are perfectly content maintaining false beliefs that rest on personal testimony, faith, or emotion.
Post Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:49 pm 
   Reply with quote  
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D

No emotion involved. It is a ludicrous statement! How do you know that crime doesn't cause poverty? If personal testimony isn't valid. Hmm then I guess the study isn't valid. They had to talk to some persons in order to study them. Where did they get their information? Or did they just go and study areas that provided evidence to prove their thesis. Scientists NEVER do that. They would never, not allow an opposing facts to slant their findings, or not study the majority of areas that disprove it. The always want to get ll the facts, not just the ones that prove their claims. Since one area has a high poverty level and just as high crime doesn’t mean poverty caused crime. Or was it that criminals live in poverty.

Your argument is the same as saying Guns kill people. People kill people, guns are only a tool. I heard the lady testify before congress how little Jonny was such an angel until he illegally acquired a hand gun and it made him into a killer.

See there's your logic.

And it doesn't matter what scientist's say. They must prove it. Which crime in the Flint Journal has poverty as the cause for the criminals action? Which ones? You cannot, because it doesn't exist.
Let us say for just a moment that you are correct. That Crime is a result of Poverty. Or Poverty causes Crime. Then if we took a map of the US and did an OVERLAY of highest Poverty rates and also Crime Rates. They should look pretty close to the same density's for the areas. It only stands to reason that if there is HIGH Poverty than there should also be high crime? Correct. Well It doesn't.

It is pretty interesting looking at overlays. You can view an area for one statistic and then view the same area for another. Then put them over each other. Wow a small percentage does match perfectly, that some of the high crime areas have high poverty. But not even half. Visually it appears that about 33 percent of Highest poverty areas have crime rates that correlate to each other, as being close to the same areas. You have High crime rates in low poverty and high poverty in Low crime areas. You don't have to be a scientist, To figure out that since many of the highest poverty levels are in rural communities and those communities most often have low crime rates. Your argument that Poverty causes Crime is like using a strainer to hold water. You'll hold some in it for a little while. But after letting it set for a while. It just won't hold water.
Oh and I also looked at unemployment rates also. That again, couldn’t allow anyone to make a conclusive decision as to the validity of your argument.
Post Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:40 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  Reply with quote  
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D

Onanother note. The experiment that they are reporting on in your link you provided. Is based in FIVE major city's. So we accept the findings of certain cities over a broader study of all areas. I'm glad I don't base my opinions on such narrow minded studies. I understand it can be difficult to look at the whole picture. But to apply findings in FIVE major cities and apply that to all of them. When some areas had as high as 13% +/- in factoring the results. And data used form a span of over thrity years. Not as trcking but for input. I'd say it was pretty much a slanted report upon it's conclusion. esp. when they didn't even look at areas that had the highest poverty levels. This report doesn't come close to even
Post Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:39 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >