Earthmuse, from previous posts, I've gathered that you hate it there. What brought you to WV and why do you stay?

WV I has some really beautiful natural features. It's a shame it hasn't gained a better footing as a vacation spot. When I worked in DCi knew people who commuted daily from WV, and others with second homes there, but a lot of them have left on account of the meth. Is it bad where you are?

#64 Welfare Queens come in all colors . The ones in WV are just less visible, on account of them there woods.

Seriously though, you guys need to go a little easier on Joe Manchin. It's pretty much a miracle he is still in office with an electorate like that. WV was pretty much a Democrat union stronghold state till ALGore declared war on Coal. The meth industry that filled the void doesn't see much use for unions.

Having open air drug deals and drive by shootings in the parking lot outside your window kinda violates the idea of having a "home" too. The grad student I mentioned grew up in one of these complexes, and went to college on a scholarship. She said the dormitory was the first time in her entire life she felt safe going to sleep at night. She took it really hard when the plan got shut down.

Do dormitory rules violate student's civil rights? What about Domestic Violence shelters with similar rules?

Keep in mind, this was to be a VOLUNTARY program. ONE complex only. Nobody had to live there if they didn't choose to.

WTH does the First amendment have to do with it?

Looks like Federal guidelines exempt caretakers of a child under 6 or an "incapacitated person" for SNAP (Not sure how that is defined)

Not trying to get personal, but you asked and I can't look up all 50. Qualification would depend on numerous variables and policies depending on the state.

"Which state?'

Why shouldn't the law be federal?

Because the federal government left it to the states to create many of the guidelines. SO which state?

I was on a committee tasked with solving a problem, which was the extroardinary number of homicides occurring in a few HUD complexes. The public wanted to know why these places, which were wholly owned and under "complete government control" were the most dangerous places to be in the entire community. The group developed a plan for a pilot project. We selected ONE complex that was so rundown and crime ridden it had been shut down as a public nuisance. We got a budget for renovations to include full fencing with a manned gate. One building would be turned into a community center with a playground, on site day care and job training classes. The hitch was that ONLY the residents would be allowed inside. The idea was pitched by a grad student on the committee who called it a "dormitory like environment". There was a park across the street where they could hang with friends and family, but no guests would be allowed inside the gates, (except for necessary exceptions, like helping with move in, medical needs, etc, and those people could not stay overnight.) Most HUD leaseholders are single mothers without serious criminal records. The crime in these communities is usually brought in by their boyfriends and other friends and family members who are not permitted by the lease to live there. The idea was to provide ONE safe haven for the Moms and kids who were looking for that, and give her the agency to say "No" to the trouble makers and hangers on who often drag these women down.

SO there was a press release and an "interested party" list was created. It was overwhelming. There hundreds of families who wanted to get on a waiting list, despite the restrictions, and despite the fact that this was a crappy postwar cinderblock complex with little more than a fresh coat of paint. Then the ACLU protested to local politicians. Because it was a gated community. Said it was akin to putting these women, who desperately wanted a safe place, in prison. So it never happened.

#49 Which state? The elderly person themself qualifies for aid and in some states the being the caretaker qualifies as a job that meets the minimum requirement necessary to stay on TANF or SNAP.

"You see Miranda I am very familiar with the type of housing you mention and people who live in public housing and my experience is different."

I don't believe you, because if you were you would know that Welfare Queens exist. It is not a myth. The majority of people living in public housing are very good people stuck there due to misfortune or disability. Those folks tend to stay inside and out of trouble, so they don't have much contact with law enforcement unless they are victimized by the others. They also don't stay in these high crime complexes permanently. I'm talking about the ones that do.

"you should quit your job as a public servent."

I'm retired. Just what is it you do for a living that makes you believe you know anything about law enforcement?

"because you clearly have a deep seated hatred for the people you should be serving."

Nope, I absolutely loved working in these neighborhoods, because I could do a lot of good helping the MAJORITY of people who were decent law abiding people trying to make the most of difficult life circumstances. The MINORITY of people, who are BAD are very real, and a scourge for the rest of them. You, on the other hand, prefer to believe that the bad ones aren't real. They are a MYTH.

#51 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-05-28 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

A couple memories come up with this subject. My first day back from 6 weeks maternity leave after the birth of my first child, I was taking a police report from a young woman (after using my lunch break to pump breast milk in my car behind a gas station). As I filled out the blocks, I asked, "Name", "DOB", "Occupation" and she said, "what's that?" And I told her "your job" and she said "JOB!!!???, I ain't got no JOB, I got a BABY!" Kinda put things in perspective for me right there.

Another defining moment was a time I was called to a gas station for a young boy, maybe 8-10. The manager said he had been there all afternoon. So I asked him where he lived so I could take him home. He named a HUD complex several miles away, outside my assigned area. The Lt. had recently made a point that we were not a "taxi service" and discouraged us from leaving our beats unless it was an emergency. So I asked him about other relatives who might live closer. He proceeded to name every aunt, uncle, grandparent, cousin in his extended family and friends, one at a time, before we landed on one close enough for me to drive him. What struck me is that EVERY SINGLE person this kid knew lived in HUD housing. The kid didn't stand much of a chance of having a solid role model to lead him into the middle class. He was practically destined to repeat the cycle. That is what cradle to grave social services creates. Multi-generational government dependence. Work and work training requirements actually provide a pathway out of that.

Certainly the "welfare Queen" is an overused stereotype, but it is not a "myth". I can't imagine what sort of place you live in that you have never encountered one. You must live a very, very sheltered life. Use your google and find a low income, high crime neighborhood. Any HUD apartment complex will do. (I imagine you will have to drive pretty far). Get out of the car and walk around for a few minutes. say hello to the locals. You might meet a few or 20. (Don't go before noon, they are still sleeping).

That is not to say that every resident of a HUD complex is a Welfare Queen, some of them are "getting their lives together" and "about to start a new job". You have to get talking to them to sort out the difference, so take your time.

Those few 50 year olds aren't not working cause they don't want to, they are not working because they have dependents who need care either elderly or special needs or multiple children and can't afford day care. OR the are disabled.

WRONG. The people you just listed are ALREADY exempt from the work requirements

Requiring able-bodied TANF recipients to work till 54? How cruel. I don't see why someone on welfare shouldn't get to retire at 49 like the rest of us....oh wait....

Sorry so cynical, I spent some years working in NdC where almost everybody works for the Federal Govt an d almost none of them actually give a ---- about the rest of Americans, as long as their paycheck is on time.

I must say, however that the "paid vacation" many employees get is no fun. You can't actually go anywhere or do anything because you don't know how long a furlough will last, it is day by day. Lots of Federal Govt workers act like they are on vacation even when they are AT work so there isn't much difference, except that a lot of energy will be devoted to creating an appearance that what they arent doing (which they don't do half the time anyway) is really, really important. Like staging photo ops of overflowing trash cans and unprocessed disability applications. Maybe starve some National Zoo animals, show crestfallen kids outside the Smithsonian, close Yosemite, that sort of thing.

#3 Well said.

nearly every office of the Federal Government is so bloated and inefficient that an independent entity with no political partisan agenda could probably find enough waste to survive a 20% budget cut with very little real impact to services or notice by the general public. Of course, that will never happen, because no such entity with "no political partisan agenda" exists in the Federal Government.

Like any big bureaucratic monster, it exists mainly to gorge itself.

I almost owned a forestry dept fire tower. It was free to a good home, but I couldn't talk my spouse into helping me take it apart to move ans reassemble. One of the many crazy ideas I abandoned for lack of a willing accomplice. He keeps me grounded, quite literally.

I did some PI work in Camden many years ago. Most depressing place I have ever been. It seemed like one long highway with strip clubs lined up for miles. "Girls, Girls, Girls", "XXXX" "More Nude Dancers" on every sign. I wondered where they got all these girls then figured out they were all the same girls, they just bused them from club to club to keep them fresh. It seemd like that was the entire local economy, at least from what I saw. I remember when they fired the police force but haven't kept up to date one how things turned out after the big upheaval. I will consider it my homework assignment to follow up on that. I'm hopeful.

"You asked for MY ideas, they are only unrealistic because republicans won't accept them. SO is the problem with the plans or with conservatives?"

I'm not a Republican. I'm more conservative than you, but I don't speak for conservatives either. I can only speak for myself, and myself is a person with a lot of experience in this particular field. I see a lot of things Liberals are rigth about and Conservatives are wrong about, and vice versa. But mostly, what I see is two sides filled with people with no first hand experience whatsoever, spouting talking points and doctrine, and dismissing the other side as "wrong". I'm a bipartisan kind of gal. The only way to solve these problems is to listen to one another and try to understand what motivates the other side, rather than labeling and demonizing them as though they have the worst possible intentions. I really do believe we all want the same basic things, we just differ on how to get there. Compromise is possible, but only if we first open our minds to what the other side has to say.

I have done that today and appreciate your input and discussion. Gotta sign off now.

OW same old same old. How many office involved will it take?

"Perhaps a civilian review board"
Most communities already have these for police shootings, not to mention DOJ oversight

"Perhaps get rid of qualified immunity"
Do you really understand what this means? Most people think it provides far more protection than it does. It protects officers acting in good faith in the performance of their duties.It does not protect officers who are incompetent, violate the law or violate civil rights.

"Perhaps hold cops financially/criminally responsible for the damage they do without an automatic default belief that they did no wrong."
That completely mischaracterizes qualified immunity

"Perhaps disarm the cops"
Back to unrealistic

"JFC you're not a serious poster. I posted a dozen plus ideas and you respond with "no realistic solutions"
I'm totally serious. You have some great ideas, but they aren't realistic BECAUSE they depend on forcing conservatives to agree with you, and you have acknowledged yourself that that is hopeless. That makes your solutions unrealistic.

"FFS it has taken decades to get here, there is no quick and easy solution to it, your thots and prayers conservative approach to problems ain't gonna cut it."
My solution is not thoughts and prayers, nor is it complaints and discontent. My solution is explained above, study, in depth analysis, compromise, bipartisanship. That is realistic.

"You want a short term solution? Take guns away from cops. No guns, no kids being shot by cops."
Another unrealistic suggestion

"You aren't serious so why bother discussing with you.
Sounds like you are the one who isn't being serious.

"I am thinking more in the line of wiping records or incentivizing businesses to hire convicts who paid their debt."

Again, can't speak for all states, but Florida already does that too. There is a process to get felonies expunged and get civil rights restored. Businesses generally can't ask about misdemeanors. There are incentives for businesses to hire convicts, and protect businesses from liability. (The Federal Bonding Program). I know of a large business in my areas that exclusively hires convicts and parolees. So there are alternatives, but agree, not enough.

"Get rid of or seriously modify the sex offender registry"

Hard to go along with that one, because sex offenders have a VERY high rate of repeating their offenses, so I think the public has a right to know when they live nearby, BUT the registry has it's own set of weaknesses. In particular, I have investigated sex crimes where moms thought they had done their due diligence by checking the registry before allowing a person access to their child. The registry gave them a false sense of security, because many sex offenders have never been caught and don't appear on the registry at all. I have also heard stories about people who ended up on the registry because of consensual incidents when they were teens, but I am skeptical of claims like those. I have never seen one for myself, and some sex offenders actually lie.

Good link, BUT "Police departments that get more equipment from the military kill more civilians than departments that get less military gear. " That gets a big DUH response. I didn't dig into his source material to see if he controlled for other variables, but he didn't mention having done so that correlation alone is meaningless beyond stating the obvious Communities with more violence are going to be more inclined to want/need military gear. Communities with more violence also have more police killings.

Ok, so we are back to "no realistic solutions" because EVERYTHING you suggest is VERY long term, and requires conservatives to declare they are wrong about everything, and come around to your way of thinking. You have already declared that will never happen. SO you got nothin'. Except complaints about conservatives. Helluva strategy.

Back to the actual topic of the thread. Aderrian Murry. The prevailing narrative for police shootings has been, "Blame systemic racism and authoritarian, trigger happy cops, hold them accountable!" We are holding more officers accountable than ever before, but there is no deterrant effect. It isn't working because they've got the "root cause" all wrong. We need to look closer.

For this particular incident, investigators need answers to all the questions I asked above. They need to perform a detailed after action review can study the circumstances and conditions and determine what could have/should have been done differently, identify failures in officer selection, training, procedures, and actions. Those failures can be addressed to prevent this set of circumstances from repeating. It is a reactionary response but if we do this sort of in depth analysis for each and every shooting incident, and build on what we learn, we may be able to make some real change.

Another thing we need to do is talk to/study the officers involved (which never happens because they are under threat of prosecution, civil suit or other social threat) and listen. Maybe with the help of hypnosis or techniques we can find answers that lie in the subconcious. The question is, do we really want to SOLVE this problem, or do we just want to look for someone to punish?