You get what you voted for

You tell us. Some of the numbers I saw recently said the DA lied and all those numbers are up. Or is this more of the same “crime is down” Propaganda and lies. No it’s not.

The DA lied? Which one? From what court? About what?

Gascon in LA is a liar as are most Soros prosecutors and their apologists. Crime is not down.

Ah, so you are familiar with the reasons why crime in rural areas are underreported. At least I don't have to explain it to you.

The FBI has some phrase about how the Wild West is still wild, that it was never tamed, that it is still lawless. This is why. No one around to witness, hear cries, called 911, report that it was kind of funny that the neighbor was loading up a rather heavy duffel bag into the trunk of their car, no somebody to spot someone off the highway digging a hole, how somewhere in some arroyo somewhere there was a stench of rotting bodies,,,

That, coupled with the fact that much of the West was settled by people from Southern Appalachia who themselves were known for a high propensity towards violence (gun culture, long-standing shoot-em-out fueds, constantly calling for civil war, etc).... adds up to higher than average violent crime rates extending in the Southeast westward.

😂 😂😂, everything you don’t like is because of Appalachian whites? Can you say racist? You have an Appalachian obsession.

Somebody I never heard of is a liar because Trump. That's sad.

Let's try this again now, shall we?
Red StateS was plural, not just Louisiana and some fanfic about bogus numbers that aren't:

▶️ "Modda 2d, 1 reply

And yet per capita, murder and other violent crime in Red States and rural areas supersedes them by how much?"

Los Angeles not Louisiana. And Red states have big blue cities. Their higher population concentration has an outsized impact on the states statistics. In blue cities the fact that more crime goes unreported and more dropped charges makes a fake drop in reported crime even though real crime is up:

Los Angeles is a city, not a state, let alone a Red one.

Actually crime tends to go more unreported in rural areas, for rather obvious reasons.
But you already know that.

I got stuff to do, let's cut out the distractions and just simply get to my question.

Nope wrong, when people know the police won’t come for hours and won’t be able to do anything anyway they stop reporting. Even if the y do respond the perpetrator will be released post haste thanks to no bail so what’s the point. Guy with 22 prior arrests shoots and kills an officer. That’s Leftist policy consequences.

Maybe because we have an open border and no control over what is being brought into the country. They have removed most drug charges from prosecution so you can’t point to that as a deterrent when you removed the very penalties that served as such.

What makes you think I have any control over these penalties? And this is still happening in states with charges, yet the rate is still up.

Quite frankly, we need a new solution to prevent crime instead of only punishing offenders

You are a voter aren’t you? The only influence you have is your vote. You support soft on crime DA’s and progressive democrats. The idea that we can’t control crime anymore is ridiculous. Democrat policy can’t control crime or homelessness and just makes both worse. Stop Voting for progressive policies that are actually a sham. The same things that used to control crime work. Punishment and incarceration have been effective tools for millenia. Repeal all no bail laws and quit putting repeat offenders back on the street.

Where did the poster say that they supported that?
Can you give me a link, the latest Walking Dead show is on in 35 minutes and I have to try to prep and eat dinner by then, so I ain't got time for searching for non-existent quotes.

They support democrats so they support that.

They don’t support democrats?

Let’s see how well you know your stuff on this, then. If your “tough on crime” strategy works so well, then why do more crimes happen in those areas?

In what areas? Are you saying red states with big blue cities like St Louis? Or Memphis?

It’s a deal, then

So we have numbers? Hmm, this may be clunky, but if you could give me the probabilities of different crimes being unreported, we could use that to estimate how many actually go unreported, then incorporate those into the crime rates and redo the crime rate model, and see if it makes any difference.

It won’t be perfect evidence as we’ll be working with estimates, but it’s something we could try

(In response to Modda)
No, but we’re focusing on them here because we already deduced that the reported numbers have no significant difference, and our model was limited in that it didn’t account for unreported crimes. While I do doubt that it would make any significant difference, it just piqued my curiosity and wanted to give it a fair shot, just in case it turns out different than what I expect

And as for your other comment, actually psychology studies show that more witnesses actually don’t improve the chances of someone interfering with the crime nor it being reported. Though I’m not sure if it would be as low as areas with lower amounts of criminal justice agencies. Perhaps it’s another factor to look into for this study

So agenda-based hypothetical numbers have more validity than actual numbers based on actual incidents?

Well first we would need to know the probability that all crimes are reported every year. Oh we know that I guess, it’s 0%. Therefore we know that crimes are unreported. Unless your contention is that 100% of crime is reported? And that means that the probability of crimes being unreported is more than 0%. So there is a mean number of unreported crime that happens every year. The question is has that number risen during no bail, soft on crime DA’s have been in office and police having stopped responding to “minor crimes,” which are the largest number. Logic says it has.

Well, no, I can’t disprove that it’s thousands, since we have no reliable number to go off of. For all we know, it may be mere hundreds, or even tens of thousands, nor can we tell if there is a significant difference between unreported crime between red and blue counties.

That being said, I do find your explanation to you saying that crime goes unreported in today’s world to be sufficient. I just wish we had a way to statistically investigate whether or not it’s increased by a significant amount or not

Based on the numbers mere hundreds is less realistic than thousands. By the numbers, theft crimes are the single largest number and are committed everywhere everyday. They are also the most likely not to be reported.

Okay, I have just ran the statistics on crime rates in randomly selected republican and democrat ran counties and compared them to the national average. It appears we were both wrong, as neither are significantly different from the national average nor each other.

This provides evidence that neither “Tough on Crime” nor “Soft on crime” policy overall affects the crime rate, so using that as an issue to vote on is shortsighted. Thank you for correcting me

Though I respect that you actually may have looked and made a calculated deduction. I believe the deduction is flawed. In a tough on crime county crimes are reported and prosecuted, while in a soft on crime people report less and DA’s prosecute less. This would infer that the tough on crime statistics have lower unreported and unprosecuted crime, whereas in a soft on crime county unreported and unprosecuted crime is not reflected in statistics and would have higher unreported crime that means a much higher true crime rate.

They conveniently forget that, don’t they?

Always, but it’s not forgetting they are not truth seekers they are propagandists who knowingly lie and omit facts.

Correct, but with some work, they can be. It won’t be the strongest evidence, but it’d at least be something

You have a fair counterargument, I think I’ll look into that next. After all, I’ve heard several people say that and take it for granted, but never seen any studies myself that back that claim up. Do you know where I could find the statistics of rates that crimes are reported?

Unfortunately if crime goes unreported there is no record so the best you will find are estimates. You might find a Correlation to DA’s declining to press charges. If true the declined to charge rates will be elevated over historical rate of declination.

I know it goes unreported because where I live the police won’t respond unless you’re in the act of being robbed or killed. Otherwise they say file with your insurance. Thousands do not bother reporting car or home break ins and Robberies. Except to the insurance company.

It is, and an obvious one. Are you having trouble with it?

I see. Though what did you land on “Thousands” if there was no way to know for sure how many crimes go unreported if you said yourself there was no way of knowing how many crimes went unreported?

I’m not trying to pull a “gotcha” on you, just wanted to know where you were coming from

Educated guess that in a city and/or a country of millions with multiple daily occurrences it would be thousands for almost any period you could name. Also combine that with the fact that progressive DA’s have stopped prosecuting many crimes making statements declaring that publicly. That has an impact on crime stats that is artificial. In most blue cities with progressive DA’s felonies are downgraded and prosecution is less successful than previously. In New York Alvin Bragg recently had a 51% felony conviction rate from historical convictions well above 60%. All add to the skewing of statistics and manipulation of data. You can say it’s not thousands but can you prove that?

The crimes reported.
Are crimes as reported by citizens claiming to be victims of crimes that they report.
Not local police departments selectively reporting to the DOJ figures as handed to them by city council.

And unreported crimes are not in the figures reported by the DOJ

Patience, Blue. We can apply logic to a hypothesis, but without running the stats, we can’t say we have evidence of that.

Right but probabilities are not evidence per se, in that sense.

As if there was a Red or Blue State with a Red "city" that was bigger than what we call neighborhoods round these parts.
There are no big cities run by Republicans. San Diego was one, but it isn't anymore.

Also, big Blue Cities in Red States are still in Red States.
Blue States have Blue cities too. In fact, they have more of them, and bigger too, much bigger.
Now compare those numbers and see how they add up.

Look into red areas in red states, and compare them to red areas in blue states, blue areas in red states, and blue areas in blue states. Y’all are a fan of doing your own research, so let’s see what you find then we can compare notes

I will do as much research as you do.

When big pharma says kids can’t sit still, so give them meth, or “you bumped your finger, have an opioid” it’s easy to see how that can happen.

This goes farther back than Ritalin. Meth is not Ritalin.

Adderall is close enough

So the argument is we should encourage those addicted to substances that turn them into Zombies?

A joint isn’t the problem, How about Fentanyl? You think that should be sold freely without hindrance.

"Bluessol

So the argument is we should encourage those addicted to substances that turn them into Zombies?"

Really? That's your argument? Is that Reagan thing still a go?

The question is that’s your argument. We can’t stop it or affect it so free for all. Crackheads rejoice!

The answer to the question is, no, it's not. It's your argument.