Fewer cops, less crime: Investigation Finds Michigan Safer Even as Police Numbers Decline - Polidicks

[QUOTE]He was police officer of the year just months ago, at one of the state’s largest departments. Decorated. Heralded. One of the best. Then he was laid off. Today, Brian Wilson does odd jobs to make ends meet. He works part-time one day a week at one of the state’s smallest departments. “A lot of my awards … had to do with being proactive,” said the former Saginaw police officer. “My ability to do that was reduced significantly over the past year because I didn’t have as much back-up and I didn’t have anywhere near as much time on the road.” [IMG]http://media.mlive.com/news_impact/photo/13296849-large.jpg[/IMG] Michigan is bleeding police officers. In the past decade, enough cops have been cut to equal the elimination of all Michigan State Police officers and the entire sworn force in Grand Rapids, the state’s second-largest city. But there’s the conundrum, an MLive Media Group investigation found. [B]Despite the decline, you have never been safer in Michigan from serious crimes in a decade.[/B] ....... [B]•[/B] Ann Arbor lost 31 percent of its officers, to 111. Population stayed nearly stable. Still, violent crimes dropped 11 percent; property crimes dropped 23 percent. [B]•[/B] Lansing lost 26 percent of its officers, falling to 187. Population fell just 4 percent. But violent crime fell 8 percent, and property crimes fell 20 percent. [B]•[/B] Saginaw lost 22 percent of its officers, to 86, and 15 percent of its population from 2003 to 2012. But violent and property crimes dropped much more, both nearly 30 percent. [url]http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/less_cops_less_crime_mlive_inv.html#incart_river_default[/url] [/QUOTE] The article has some other useful links, you can search by county what the crime reports have come up with. Here is a graph of my county, I live in Ludington and there has been a very steep decline in crime rate, which I have seen for the past 5 1/2 years I've lived here. [url]http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/how_have_cops_and_crime_fared.html?appSession=913406720858736[/url]

Wow, less people to report or enforce laws and suddenly crime rates drop? No wonder! Not like less people capable of protecting a civilian population would at all leave them open to intimidation by criminals to not report crimes!

[QUOTE=draugur;41968565]Wow, less people to report or enforce laws and suddenly crime rates drop? No wonder! Not like less people capable of protecting a civilian population would at all leave them open to intimidation by criminals to not report crimes![/QUOTE] I don't feel safe around them, I am always on edge.

[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;41968570]I don't feel safe around them, I am always on edge.[/QUOTE] Quit being paranoid as fuck then. Honestly, cops aren't there to fucking rip you limb from limb if you sneeze.

HERE COME THE ANARCHISTS

[QUOTE=Vasili;41968592]HERE COME THE ANARCHISTS[/QUOTE] BURN, PILLAGE, LOOT! TOTALLY LOWER CRIME RATES, TRUST ME, IT'S SAFE HERE!

[QUOTE=draugur;41968565]Wow, less people to report or enforce laws and suddenly crime rates drop? No wonder! Not like less people capable of protecting a civilian population would at all leave them open to intimidation by criminals to not report crimes![/QUOTE] Did you even look at the graphs?

almost like authority is unnecessary hmmmm

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41968608]Did you even look at the graphs?[/QUOTE] Yes. Crime rate increases as more police were hired BECAUSE THERE WERE MORE POLICE TO STOP CRIMINALS! WOAH, REVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT ALERT! Cops have specific rules of engagement when it comes to criminals, they can't pursue if they don't have the proper amount of back-up, etc... More cops = more crime being stopped = higher crime rate because more crime is reported and recorded. Saying that less cops = less crime is like saying that less cell phone towers = better cell phone coverage.

[QUOTE=draugur;41968630]Yes. Crime rate increases as more police were hired BECAUSE THERE WERE MORE POLICE TO STOP CRIMINALS! WOAH, REVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT ALERT! Cops have specific rules of engagement when it comes to criminals, they can't pursue if they don't have the proper amount of back-up, etc... More cops = more crime being stopped = higher crime rate because more crime is reported and recorded. Saying that less cops = less crime is like saying that less cell phone towers = better cell phone coverage.[/QUOTE] yeah more people being busted = less crime 100%

[QUOTE=Judas;41968627]almost like authority is unnecessary hmmmm[/QUOTE] I can only express how wrong you are with one rating, but you're wrong enough for at least several more. A lack of formal authority is just asking for those with malicious intent to quickly form their own authority anyway. I.E gang violence to keep territory under control, the entire country of Mexico with the cartels, you get the idea. You know why the crime rate in Mexico is so low compared to the level of cartel control in the area? Because a good majority of the shit they do goes unreported and no one is there to stop it. But, if you're going to romanticize anarchy you're an idiot anyway. There's a reason that societies exist, people are always going to band together, it's a natural instinct, and usually it's in the intent to either exploit the weak or for the weak to protect against the ones that exploit them, the latter usually ends up dead.

[QUOTE=Vasili;41968592]HERE COME THE ANARCHISTS[/QUOTE] do you know in an anarchy it's physically impossible to break the law? anarchists: 1 developed society: 0

Ignoring that there is no proof of causality, and that there are many other factors involved, like definitions, changes in policies, etc, fewer cops = less crime.

[QUOTE=Judas;41968672]yeah more people being busted = less crime 100%[/QUOTE] What i think he means is as there are less police, people are looking elsewhere for their protection.

[QUOTE=Judas;41968672]yeah more people being busted = less crime 100%[/QUOTE] Okay, let me give you this in simple number form. You have a city that has 5 districts and it requires 10 police officers to patrol each district to be effective. Now, you had 50 police officers, which covers every district nicely, but suddenly, you get a budget cut and you lose 25 of those officers. You now only have the ability to cover half the amount of the city effectively as you did before. Okay, now you begin to have a major gang problem, think of it like turf wars, but between gangs and police. Your gang has noticed a major lack of police presence in your district because of the budget cuts, so your gang's members are being arrested less as the amount of police coverage is too thin to stop you. Now, you have a good number of gangsters, you decide to take control of the district, which is easy because the cops are busy trying to protect the entire city with only 25 cops, and you're only taking a fifth of that. Well, you begin to extort the local population, and make death threats against anyone that tells the police, you also make this threat real by violent massacres of people when they challenge your control. Ok so, now you have a district in your hypothetical city that is controlled by a gang, crime rates are really low here, but why are they low? Because no one is going to report the crime, because the crime isn't going to be stopped, these people now use the gang as their protection, but the "justice" the gang dispenses is just killing people and controlling the population with drug addiction and violence. So yes, you have a lower crime rate, but lower crime rate recorded =/= less crime. [editline]25th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;41968755]What i think he means is as there are less police, people are looking elsewhere for their protection.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and they end up looking to places that are going to control them like slaves and kill them for defying their rule. If you were in a neighborhood controlled by a gang, would you speak out against gang violence if it was liable to get your house firebombed, your family raped and killed? No. It's like saying that crime rates were lower in the 1920's because of the mob.

[QUOTE=draugur;41968793]Okay, let me give you this in simple number form. You have a city that has 5 districts and it requires 10 police officers to patrol each district to be effective. Now, you had 50 police officers, which covers every district nicely, but suddenly, you get a budget cut and you lose 25 of those officers. You now only have the ability to cover half the amount of the city effectively as you did before. Okay, now you begin to have a major gang problem, think of it like turf wars, but between gangs and police. Your gang has noticed a major lack of police presence in your district because of the budget cuts, so your gang's members are being arrested less as the amount of police coverage is too thin to stop you. Now, you have a good number of gangsters, you decide to take control of the district, which is easy because the cops are busy trying to protect the entire city with only 25 cops, and you're only taking a fifth of that. Well, you begin to extort the local population, and make death threats against anyone that tells the police, you also make this threat real by violent massacres of people when they challenge your control. Ok so, now you have a district in your hypothetical city that is controlled by a gang, crime rates are really low here, but why are they low? Because no one is going to report the crime, because the crime isn't going to be stopped, these people now use the gang as their protection, but the "justice" the gang dispenses is just killing people and controlling the population with drug addiction and violence. So yes, you have a lower crime rate, but lower crime rate recorded =/= less crime. [editline]25th August 2013[/editline] Yeah, and they end up looking to places that are going to control them like slaves and kill them for defying their rule. If you were in a neighborhood controlled by a gang, would you speak out against gang violence if it was liable to get your house firebombed, your family raped and killed? No. It's like saying that crime rates were lower in the 1920's because of the mob.[/QUOTE] Well goddamn sir, why don't you post that in the comments section of the article. You bring up a good point

[QUOTE=Judas;41968672]yeah more people being busted = less crime 100%[/QUOTE] You are on par with those people who believe that a true, perfect communism can be achieved if we ~just~ try hard enough.

No cops = safer streets.

[QUOTE=Judas;41968627]almost like authority is unnecessary hmmmm[/QUOTE] lol because that works out really great yep great idea just kidding, that's a shit idea

Hey guys I have no anti virus program. I must have 0 viruses!

Post hoc fallacy. For all we know, police numbers could have dropped in response to a trend of reduced crime. Or something like gang culture may have been in decline over the years anyways. I seriously doubt that fewer cops on the streets would lead to reduced crime without others variables affecting the situation.

[QUOTE=Judas;41968627]almost like authority is unnecessary hmmmm[/QUOTE] The inability to read and search is shocking indeed.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;41969093]Post hoc fallacy. For all we know, police numbers could have dropped in response to a trend of reduced crime. Or something like gang culture may have been in decline over the years anyways. I seriously doubt that fewer cops on the streets would lead to reduced crime without others variables affecting the situation.[/QUOTE] I wonder how much victimless crimes contributed to the crimerate too, maybe cops can't be bothered to deal with things like pot smokers anymore seeing as there aren't enough cops to go around to make it worth while.

So by this logic, Irvine, California is the safest city in America because it doesn't have a police force. Even though it does. :downs:

Lol at people who think they need an overseeing all powerful authority babysitting them 24/7 to be safe

[QUOTE=Faz;41970124]Lol at people who think they need an overseeing all powerful authority babysitting them 24/7 to be safe[/QUOTE] Who else can man all of our telescreens. Whatever shall we do.

There needs to be a version of Godwins law that also covers 1984

[QUOTE=Faz;41970124]Lol at people who think they need an overseeing all powerful authority babysitting them 24/7 to be safe[/QUOTE] These don't exist.

-snip- Flint is riddled with crime. It's a terrible place, and believe it or not, it's worse than Detroit in my opinion. EDIT: Shit, I was wrong. Flint was in the article. My bad.

[QUOTE=Faz;41970124]Lol at people who think they need an overseeing all powerful authority babysitting them 24/7 to be safe[/QUOTE] I'm sure you had a point; would you like to perhaps repeat it in a manner which [I]isn't[/I] deliberately antagonistic?