|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 29, 2009 14:12:29 GMT -5
Missing The Point,
It is not solely about call volume. Sandag has a number of reports as does the sherriff department. Look at the number of responses for burglary and you can see that the police departments respond to a much greater number of burglary calls per capita in Del Mar and Coronado than they do in National City or El Cajon (not just slightly more). I never said it was racist or all about race. It is a factor of whether a community has it's own force, how much a community can afford to pay for services, and to be realistic other socio-economic factors. To pretend otherwise is naive not common sense. The numbers would look much different if it was solely about call volume and seriousness of the offense. I will stipulate that to imagine it is solely or even primarily about race is equally as faulty.
We police more in areas we are more interested in. That is true nationally and internationally. We police areas that have natural resources we are concerned about, areas that have people we better identify with and areas where we have the most invested. That was the point of the post that kicked off this side topic. We will protect Kuwait and not Somalia. This isn't a judgement it is just an observation. Funny how everyone totally passed on the Jackson Browne lyrics and went right to the law enforcement piece.
Jackson will be performing at Humphreys in August. Jack you Lou and Nikki should consider picking up your tickets now to avoid any major dissapointments and to make sure you get a good seat (although there are really no bad seats at Humphreys).
PS- In case you got the wrong idea about San Diego law enforcement there are plenty of statistics that suggest crime is going down here faster and with less resources than anywhere else. New York City probably spends six or seven times more than San Diego for the per capita cost of law enforcement. We have one of the lowest ratios of police to citizens as any major city and yet almost all types of crime are being reduced. Response times, although better in certain areas, are pretty good when compared to similar cities and response times have been going down although the numbers Landstedt provides should be questioned as a conditioned response.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jun 29, 2009 14:23:09 GMT -5
I speculate this also has a great deal to do with a large volume of Military presence and socio-economic conditions because the median financial status is higher per capita as well? (I don't know this for fact but given the "Sun Belt Factors and all considered)??
We also have a significant amount of Border Patrol presence even though they are not allowed enforcement rights their presence helps.
It could also be that we "were a conservative" pocket in California until this past election where we trended more liberal. If this has any bearing on the issue then it will certainly get worse.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 29, 2009 15:43:09 GMT -5
johng, Not sure what you mean. The assumption is that conservatives are tough on crime. Reality is that they are just tough on funding crime prevention. Clinton put more cops on the street and crime went down. Clinton enforced the border and illegal immigration went down. Bush gives tax breaks to energy companies and the richest Americans but does not enforce the border and lets the Clinton initiatives die a slow death. If you are waiting for a Republican elected official to help us with crime you may be waiting a really long time.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jun 29, 2009 16:54:45 GMT -5
Larry, I really like your avatar as it seems to fit you! I was not being anywhere near as official as you and I lack total backup so please forgive me. I was only indicating that maybe all the additional Military and Border patrol presence combined with the "Redneck Resident Rate" might "unofficially contribute to the situation. For the official status of which party is best suited to throw the criminals in jail, I default to your talent for stating fact. I am a little pressed to believe the "Illegal Immigrant Population" increased more under Bush than Clinton but you are likely correct. Did "W" just fire all those extra cops Clinton put in service? I don't remember hearing that but it is possible since it seems the last 20 years have been politics that goes directly against anything the previous 'WH Free Loader" did?
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jun 29, 2009 17:07:57 GMT -5
Here we go again... Since a comparison of crime stats between Clinton's and Bush's administrations has been brought up, it reminded me of something said in February of 2008: “Crime has increased steadily the last seven years and the bad guys who were sent to jail when Clinton was president are coming up for parole. The average American is significantly more likely to be a victim of a violent crime by a US citizen than they are to be a victim of terrorism or a victim of a crime committed by an illegal alien.“… I'll simply repost my reply from back then: According to the FBI Violent Crime Offense Figure, violent crime made a drastic drop in the period begining in 2002 and hit a bottom in 2004. It rose again from 2004 through 2006. In 2006, it was still lower than in 2002. The FBI also compiles data on other kinds of crime. Property crimes had an altogether different plot. It simply went down. Murders increased 1.9% in 2006 over 2005. This was a massive failure of American society. According to the FBI, “For the first time since 1992 data reported to the UCR Program indicated a slight increase in the violent crime estimate for the Nation. A comparison of the 2001 violent crime estimate of 1,436,611 with the 2000 estimate demonstrated a 0.8-percent rise. (Bush was inaugurated in January 2001). However, the 2001 number was substantially lower than the violent crime volumes of both 5 and 10 years ago. Clinton was in office for 8 years. Violent crime estimates in 2001 were 12.2 percent lower than the figure in 1997 and 25.7 percent below the 1992 estimate. Now, there are a lot of graphs, data, reports and gov speak to sieve through at the FBI Dot Gov website. But, it is a lot easier to wade through than the Larry's repeat of the same misleading information we are seeing here- once again. The Enron Cooked Books, a specialty of the house of Arthur Anderson, were discovered in October of 2001, nine months after G.W. Bush was sworn in. Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December of 2001. Congress passed legislation that deregulated the sale of natural gas. Enron, and its stock, began a skyrocket rise in value and stature. They became this biggest seller of natural gas in 1992. They continued their growth all throughout Clinton's two terms. Their stock value rose 311% under Clinton. It "Well, thank you very much, we appreciate that . . . asshole." This was an inside joke among Enron employees after Wall Street analyst Richard Grubman question Enron's unusual accounting practice and asked Jeff Skilling, then Enron CEO, why they couldn't put out a balance sheet with their earnings statement. The "asshole" remark was because Grubman had a reputation for being rather blunt. Of course, Skilling got out before the real feeding frenzy began. Ken Lay remained Enron's m, as we later learned. This all resulted in the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was signed into law by then President Bush in 2002. The President said that it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt." To quote Wiki: "The act significantly raises criminal penalties for securities fraud, for destroying, altering or fabricating records in federal investigations or any scheme or attempt to defraud shareholders." The real history of illegal immigration is interesting. Consider: The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for over 2.7 million illegal aliens. It was revised under Clinton in Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994 which provided a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens, and again in Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997 which was really an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997 created an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America and the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998 gave amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti. In late 2000 an amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty were estimated at 400,000 illegal aliens. So unfair was that that Clinton signed the LIFE Act Amnesty in 2000 which reinstated of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Of course, the Border Patrol was powerless in these circumstances. While Clinton was spending good money to patrol the border, he was also providing shelter for those already here! In other words, he gave amnesty to illegal aliens, the same people he paid "good money" to stop from coming across the border so that those same people would not have to cross the border again- heading south! This does not take away from Larry's assertion about Clinton out-enforcing Bush at the border. With regard to illegal immigration, Bush was a boob. But, as we later found, Clinton was a facilitator. Then Bush tried to do the same friggin thing!
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jun 29, 2009 17:26:40 GMT -5
OK UNCLE.
Unfortunately Sarbanes-Oxley did nothing to prevent Congress critters (Frank, Dodd, Waters, et al) from arm twisting Fannie and Freddie into loaning money to people who could never afford such... Did not stop them at all!
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jun 29, 2009 17:38:29 GMT -5
Ahhh, but you see, that was yet another of Clinton's foibles.... on of the juiciest of them all.
It all started with redlining...
Larry?
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jun 29, 2009 17:55:34 GMT -5
I have no comment on the police response situation here in San Diego. I lived in la Vista and police response time was excellent and better in the older Westside, working class and heavily hispanic than in the newer eastside ( Rancho del Rey, Eastlake) higher income areas. In LA, hispanic and black precincts regularly vote 2to1 to fund police efforts, liberal white precincts vote 2to1 against. There are no more working class white areas to speak of. Also a recent poll showed high support for the LAPD in all areas, and Chief Bratton has more support among minorities than others.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jun 29, 2009 18:00:04 GMT -5
I have no comment on the police response situation here in San Diego. I lived in la Vista and police response time was excellent and better in the older Westside, working class and heavily hispanic than in the newer eastside ( Rancho del Rey, Eastlake) higher income areas. In LA, hispanic and black precincts regularly vote 2to1 to fund police efforts, liberal white precincts vote 2to1 against. There are no more working class white areas to speak of. Also a recent poll showed high support for the LAPD in all areas, and Chief Bratton has more support among minorities than others. Police Headquaters in CV is in the area and was always good response when I lived there also. I live in Scripps ranch now and the response time is also good with a substation in Mira Mesa. I have 2 neighbors that are SDPD and they drive the patrol car home now and then as a reminder to all, that does not hurt either.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 29, 2009 20:15:14 GMT -5
Johng- Employement may be one of the biggest factors in lower crime rates.
Hatch- What does law enforcement say about the COPS program? What does the association of mayors say about it? Clinton reduced crime in cities for all population groups (according to the FBI) and these programs continued to pay dividends after he left office. Clinton has a list of crime related initiatives. Can you please direct me to the Bush program that accounted for the reduction in crime you are talking about. Could it be that the community based actions of the Clinton program took some years to bear their fruit. Did you notice that violent crime went up from 2004 to 2007? Do you think his 1.4 billion dollar reduction had something to do with it? The crime rates in 2002 you want to attribute to Bush. How about the crime rates in 2006 and 2007. Those will tell you the results of the years of budget reductions in crime prevention by his administration. You should probably try to bolster your own statistics before you talk about misleading. Your chronology does not hold up. You know it and I know it.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jun 30, 2009 9:23:46 GMT -5
Larry, my post was mostly a repost of a reply to your post, both from February, 2008. When I do research, I try to save studies or, at least, the links to references. In February and March of last year, I posted the links to the FBI and DOJ pages from which I derived my numbers. Much of the data are available as Excel spreadsheets, so they are easily read at leisure,searchable and sortable.
In the interest of being honest about the facts, I post which crimes went up, which one went down, during what period, and how they compared to the previous ten year period. The increases in violent crimes in a short period of time were a fraction of the increases in the previous administration.
To answer one of your questions: Cops like COPS. Bush had no substantial crime reduction program. It would be inaccurate to say that he didn't need one. But, it would be wrong to say that he cut funding for law enforcement because he cut increases. His budgets, instead, increased funding for DHS. National security became a front burner item.
But, we are going over old well tread ground. You ignored it then and again...
I also responded to your claim that Clinton did more and spent more on securing the border against illegal immigration. That is partly true and partly just plain wrong. He spent the money where it was politically advantageous. He then gave de facto amnesty to millions.
Bush screwed up even better. He spent money on securing the borders in ways Clinton never considered. Then again, it was a different world back then. Bush's screw up came from trying to give amnesty to millions more than Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jun 30, 2009 12:47:21 GMT -5
Johng- Employement may be one of the biggest factors in lower crime rates. Larry you may well have pegged something there. High rate of unemployment is always a trigger for crime but usually shows up in the area of robbery and theft not more violent crime. California has a current 11.4% unemployment but San Diego is well below that +/-8% I believe? Not doubt it will influence the crime rates at all levels if it continues to increase.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 30, 2009 15:59:06 GMT -5
johng- Jobs and families get in the way of lots of other activities. Many believe, I among them, that part of the terrorist problem is that there are too many middle eastern youth with nothing better to do than nurture their hate for us. I had often thought about a life of crime, but coaching little league always got in the way.
Hatch- I think you must be agreeing with me. The perception is that republicans are tougher on crime. That is not supported by facts. There is a perception that the judiciary is filled with liberal appointed justices. That too is just not the case. I am not sure which is more appaling the quantity of money Bush threw at iraq and homeland security or the quality of the security he bought with that money. Clinton might be a lying basperson, according to some, but he spent money much better than W. Hence we can conclude there is no correlation to being a lying basperson and spending money smartly (technically bush just had a bunch of lying baspersons working for him-he may have been the most honest of the bunch- not the most honest just of that bunch).
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jun 30, 2009 16:35:53 GMT -5
Larry,
According to JD my desire to provide for my family which drove me to workaholic status and business ownership is worse than the life of crime you describe - under the class of "Can't win for winning" I agree with you!
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jun 30, 2009 16:40:59 GMT -5
Hatch- I think you must be agreeing with me. The perception is that republicans are tougher on crime.Hell no, I'm not agreeing with you! You need to loosen those sutures in your cranium and give your brains some room to romp around. OK. I agree with where you are coming from about "republicans are tougher on crime". The twenty year stats don't bear that out. But, neither does the claim that it went down under Clinton and up under Bush. There were slight reductions of various crimes under Bush. Rather than rehash, I will PM you a file I downloaded from either the FBI or DOJ, if I can attach the file. If not, I will locate the links. They have to be on one of these computers. If I can send the file, look under the US Crime Index tab. I highlighted the periods of the two administrations. Yellow is Clinton and pink is Bush's. Of particular interest are the columns titled "Violent", "Murder" and "Rape". What is also interesting is the stats for the years under G.H.W. Bush and Reagan. Not good for Republicans. All in all, Bush didn't do badly. He not only had reductions per capita, he also had reductions in total. So did Clinton.
|
|