smells like a rightwing false flag

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

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.
#48 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

ummm wow, ok, ahh, yeah, ummm ...

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.

you should quit your job as a public servent.

It's simply the expected end game of a brilliant campaign by the rich to set the middle and poor classes against each other.

See those on here cheering on making the poor work more for benefits.

"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"

Which, again, is simply not true.

So, go ahead and celebrate more work requirements for Medicaid and TANF and SNAP.

You are truly too stupid to live.

Walmart makes Brett Favre's scheme look like peanuts by comparison

$6 BILLION

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.

The welfare queen is a disgusting myth

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.

The welfare queen is a disgusting myth

note not not

Walmart recently reported net income of $5.14 billion for its most recent quarter, while McDonald's reported net income of $1.76 billion for the same period.

It's not like these companies can't afford to pay their employees more.

not net means PROFIT

Walmart thanks you for your contribution to paying their employees

People are ducking stupid

Or consider a young adult say early 20's who was sexually molested for years as a child and young teen. He has never received therapy to address the trauma. He sexually assaults a child.

Is that offender not entitled to some redemption? Something years of therapy could heal? Why should he be thrown on the trash, even having committed a heinous crime.

And to be clear, I am NOT advocating no consequences for sex offenders. Clearly there needs to be consequences. But throwing away lives? That seems abhorrent to me.

"If sexual offenders, why not violent offenders? Why not property crimes? Why not car thieves?"
Because sex crimes offend the conscience more as does the possibility of recidivism, especially when the victims are children. Don't be obtuse.

#62 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Obtuse? All crimes offend my conscience as does throwing a person in the trash for a single act.

Let's compare 2 scenarios:

1. a 21 year old has sex with a 15 year old-statutory rape. Get sentenced for 5 years in prison, comes out 26 or 27 and his life is essentially trash as he will be on a sex offender registry for life. Compound that by the heinous treatment he likely received in prison.

2. A 21 year old who savagely beats a 15 year old. Gets sentenced to 5 years in prison. Comes out 26 or 27, he is now an angry ex-con who cannot get a job, has received no effective therapy or anger management.

Which would pose a greater risk to the community? Cause that is the basis of the sex offender registry is it not?

My solution is explained above, study, in depth analysis, compromise, bipartisanship. That is realistic.

IOW the same policies, plans, procedures, that have left us where we are, with noone trusting police, police arriving guns ablazing at a DV call.

Not specifically targeting DV but look at what Camden NJ did with their police force. They fired the entire police force (something that pissed off the police union), rehired police and initiated community policing. they police stopped arresting minor drug offenders and concentrated on violent crime while interacting with the community and guess what? They were very successful, murder rates down, violent crimes down, arrests down. Instead of criminalizing entire communities they were able to focus on the real bad guys. Since the locals saw the police not harassing the residents, they built trust in the police allowing for better tips, the police were required to interact with the residents/businesses so they got to know the people they serve, so they were able to identify outsiders easier, receive tips and witnesses for the actual bad guys. Police brutality claims down. Win-win for everyone.

That is the type of policing that works-demilitarized, community, walk a beat type ----, where the police live in the community, actually know people by name. that does a lot

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.

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?

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.

Please present republican/conservative anti-crime initiatives beyond more police and arming private citizens, I'm curious.

so I think the public has a right to know when they live nearby

why?

If sexual offenders, why not violent offenders? Why not property crimes? Why not car thieves?

Why are a number of people simply written off due to a crime? Like it or not sexual offenders can receive therapy to prevent their committing crimes. In fact many sexual offenders were victims of sexual abuse themselves.

because sex offenders have a VERY high rate of repeating their offenses,

Ummm NO

They found that the sexual recidivism rate for rapists was 14% after five years and 24% after fifteen years. There is a 16% recidivism rate for sexual predators who target minors after 15 years and a 9% recidivism rate for those who target female victims after just five years.

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.

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

Perhaps a civilian review board
Perhaps get rid of qualified immunity
Perhaps hold cops financially/criminally responsible for the damage they do without an automatic default belief that they did no wrong.
Perhaps disarm the cops

---- it thots and prayers cause 11 year olds getting shot is funny!

JFC you're not a serious poster. I posted a dozen plus ideas and you respond with "no realistic solutions"

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.

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

You aren't serious so why bother discussing with you.

"make it near impossible for a convict to reenter society."
Very true, this is a difficult problem. So assuming it is only conservative businesses that don't want to hire convicted felons, why can't Liberal businesses can lead the way and hire more? If your theories are sound, it should be a win/win and the Liberal businesses will be even more competitive.

I am thinking more in the line of wiping records or incentivizing businesses to hire convicts who paid their debt. If you don't offer an alternative what are people to do.

Get rid of or seriously modify the sex offender registry, again, if you don't give people reasonable options they will turn to crime.

"And stop sending whole generations of young men into prison so that they can actually create 2 parenting situations"
That would be awesome. One issue is that the incentive for a woman to declare the father of her child as "unknown". If the father is acknowledged on the birth certificate, imparting some level of responsibility, then the state can enforce a child support order, which reduces her AFDC. If she leaves him off the birth certificate, she can keep the AFDC, then hope he stops by once a week with some Pampers. Sadly, some women consider that the measure of a good father. A bag of diapers.

#40 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

There are certainly ways to economically incentive a solution to this problem, like stop penalizing a family unit where the father does go on the birth certificate.