Scum Of Buffalo Looting And Destroying Property

[over9five]

Or they could get on the roof with a rifle and protect their property

This is what I was thinking. Sit in your store or business with your gun. Shoot intruders multiple times.
Bullets are cheap.

 

[newolddude]

I thought defund the police was a MAGA chant.

They just want the police to be able to beat the crap out of/kill black people without repercussions because that’s what they fantasize about doing. And then when white people commit crime they want them let off with a friendly wink.

No you didn't. What I pointed to was the reason WHY you and the others are not getting the more aggressive approach to fighting crime that you demand..... The unwillingness of people like yourself to bear the additional costs in order to provide the additional resources needed in order undertake that effort.

A pair of old sayings is never more applicable than they are here.
1. "Money talks and bull feces walks.
2. "You get what you pay for" .

Not once have you demonstrated a willingness to fork over the additional cash in order to meet law enforcements needed for the additional resources.

Police should be well equipped, highly trained and paid very well. But MAGAs complain their taxes are too high.

 

[vantexan]

"Show me the money". There's a rural county in my state that is critically short of county deputies resulting in zero courthouse security. So if you want to be a tough on crime Deputy Dog...."book him Dano" there's a job right there waiting for you.

Hourly starting pay.....$11.92. Municipal and county jail guards....They're begging for them .

Some of you guys are no better than the crooks in the sense that you want services than directly improve the quality of your lives but near zero cost to you and in some cases you want them for free. Crooks want something for nothing....and so do you. So you're no better than they are

Law enforcement can't do more than what the resources you're willing to provide and PAY for will allow them to do.

We aren't the ones who don't want to fund law enforcement. And there are workarounds for such situations like taking criminals to the next county over. And those situations are the exception, not the norm. Smash and grab shop lifting is happening in large populated areas with wealth, not in rural backwaters. Defunding the police, no bail, etc are happening in those large metro areas too...by soft on crime Democrats.

 

[vantexan]

No you didn't. What I pointed to was the reason WHY you and the others are not getting the more aggressive approach to fighting crime that you demand..... The unwillingness of people like yourself to bear the additional costs in order to provide the additional resources needed in order undertake that effort.

A pair of old sayings is never more applicable than they are here.
1. "Money talks and bull feces walks.
2. "You get what you pay for" .

Not once have you demonstrated a willingness to fork over the additional cash in order to meet law enforcements needed for the additional resources.

So your response is let's reduce the size of the police department, let criminals immediately back on the street, bail is racist?

 

[bacha29]

I thought defund the police was a MAGA chant.

They all want a far more aggressive approach to fighting crime. More jails, more cops, more prosecutors more equipment etc etc
until they are called upon to fork over the cash to pay for it all.....Oh how quiet they then get.

There's once state I know of that has put pull as much as 300 million dollars every year out of it's highway repair budget just to keep the state police force at minimum levels.

 

[PT Car Washer]

We aren't the ones who don't want to fund law enforcement. And there are workarounds for such situations like taking criminals to the next county over. And those situations are the exception, not the norm. Smash and grab shop lifting is happening in large populated areas with wealth, not in rural backwaters. Defunding the police, no bail, etc are happening in those large metro areas too...by soft on crime Democrats.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

 

[vantexan]

They all want a far more aggressive approach to fighting crime. More jails, more cops, more prosecutors more equipment etc etc
until they are called upon to fork over the cash to pay for it all.....Oh how quiet they then get.

There's once state I know of that has put pull as much as 300 million dollars every year out of it's highway repair budget just to keep the state police force at minimum levels.

Already been demonstrated here that your side thinks fighting crime means attacking black people and whites skate. That's what it's all about, not your concern for lack of funds.

 

[vantexan]

Who is this "we" you speak of?

We is us, you is them.

 

[PT Car Washer]

They all want a far more aggressive approach to fighting crime. More jails, more cops, more prosecutors more equipment etc etc
until they are called upon to fork over the cash to pay for it all.....Oh how quiet they then get.

There's once state I know of that has put pull as much as 300 million dollars every year out of it's highway repair budget just to keep the state police force at minimum levels.

At the same time my states governor sent our state troopers to Texas as some kind of publicity stunt.

 

[bacha29]

So your response is let's reduce the size of the police department, let criminals immediately back on the street, bail is racist?

If they don't have enough money in their budgets they have no choice but to downsize. If you want additional public services then you first have to demonstrate a willingness to accept much higher fees and taxes in order to pay those costs .

Yet not a single one of you has stated for the record that you are willing to accept that additional burden.

 

[PT Car Washer]

We is us, you is them.

And the wes all voted for you to be their spokesperson?

 

[vantexan]

If they don't have enough money in their budgets they have no choice but to downsize. If you want additional public services then you first have to demonstrate a willingness to accept much higher fees and taxes in order to pay those costs .

Yet not a single one of you has stated for the record that you are willing to accept that additional burden.

Excuse me, the defund the police movement was over accusations of racism and police brutality, not over lack of funds. Letting shoplifters just steal up to a certain amount or if arrested be put immediately back on the street has nothing to do with lack of funds. That's Democratic district attorneys saying they'll no longer obey the law and prosecute for certain crimes as doing so is racist.

 

[vantexan]

And the wes all voted for you to be their spokesperson?

Why yes, yes they did. They specifically told me to represent them in a forum discussion whenever some smart ass thinks he knows what's best for everyone and tries to shut down dissenting voices. Unfortunately the sheer number of asses on this forum, smart or otherwise, keeps me up into the wee hours. We in the wee hours.

 

[bacha29]

We aren't the ones who don't want to fund law enforcement. And there are workarounds for such situations like taking criminals to the next county over. And those situations are the exception, not the norm. Smash and grab shop lifting is happening in large populated areas with wealth, not in rural backwaters. Defunding the police, no bail, etc are happening in those large metro areas too...by soft on crime Democrats.

No crime in rural America? LMAO. It's everywhere. So tell me...would you be willing to accept a minimum federal income tax surcharge in order to pay for enhanced law enforcement efforts?

In other words if our income is low enough that you would not have a federal income tax liability put you would still have to pay that surcharge. Would you be willing to pay higher federal fuel taxes in order to fund it? Why not ack an extra 25 bucks onto vehicle license fess to pay for it.

So you want a stronger effort at combating crime? Give us some ideas on how to pay for it.

 

[bacha29]

Why yes, yes they did. They specifically told me to represent them in a forum discussion whenever some smart ass thinks he knows what's best for everyone and tries to shut down dissenting voices. Unfortunately the sheer number of asses on this forum, smart or otherwise, keeps me up into the wee hours. We in the wee hours.

Dissenting voices ring hollow if they involve demands for public services but deny the funds to pay for them .

 

[newolddude]

It should have been called re-fund the police.

-Pay the good cops better.
-Shift money to social services so police aren’t bothering with homeless and mental issues. Instead have more social workers so police can protect and handle crime.

 

[vantexan]

No crime in rural America? LMAO. It's everywhere. So tell me...would you be willing to accept a minimum federal income tax surcharge in order to pay for enhanced law enforcement efforts?

In other words if our income is low enough that you would not have a federal income tax liability put you would still have to pay that surcharge. Would you be willing to pay higher federal fuel taxes in order to fund it? Why not ack an extra 25 bucks onto vehicle license fess to pay for it.

So you want a stronger effort at combating crime? Give us some ideas on how to pay for it.

If that is what it takes to fight crime then have at it. How about while at it put up a border wall to stem the tide of criminals coming in unvetted? Do you want to pay a surcharge to fund the billions spent allowing millions to come in illegally including criminals who commit hundreds of thousands of crime annually? Of course you don't. You think the Federal government has an endless river of money to spend on everything but border security.

 

[vantexan]

It should have been called re-fund the police.

-Pay the good cops better.
-Shift money to social services so police aren’t bothering with homeless and mental issues. Instead have more social workers so police can protect and handle crime.

And if those with mental issues are committing crimes?

 

[vantexan]

Dissenting voices ring hollow if they involve demands for public services but deny the funds to pay for them .

Where is this happening? When we see gangs rampaging through jewelry stores in rich San Francisco and nothing is happening to them do you think it's because of lack of funding?

 

[bacha29]

It should have been called re-fund the police.

-Pay the good cops better.
-Shift money to social services so police aren’t bothering with homeless and mental issues. Instead have more social workers so police can protect and handle crime.

Exactly. Provided that there is a willingness on the part of the public to accept higher fees and taxes to pay for it all. The money to fund the cost of public services has to come from the public. The primary complaint coming from law enforcement today is the lack of manpower due to low salaries. The same thing you hear from social services. Badly understaffed due to long hours, hazardous work environment and LOW PAY.