Well, it’s not weird, weird. It’s more like immoral, but kind of regular.
Its sweet and innocent that thinks the cops even give a thousand dollars of time and effort to investigating crimes against the poor.
Police clocking fifty hours of overtime at $75/hr playing candy crush while they claim they’re investing a bike theft is something in willing to believe.
Thats why the worst time to have an interaction with a cop is within 30 minutes before end of shift/shift change.
Cause they make tons of false arrests to milk several extra hours of overtime slow walking paperwork and other bullshit.
Wrong, police spends quite a lot against poor and homeless people to “keep them in line”
In line and on display to motivate the near-homeless working class to keep going to their three jobs to stay afloat.
Someone has to weld spikes onto benches
They should close the investigation now before we waste more resources. Can’t they just get another CEO? Plus its not like the old CEO is just gonna wakeup and start ceo-ing … Not with all them speed holes.
The king is dead, long live the king?
It’s very likely that NYPD is going to spend a lot more on this murder than an “ordinary” one, but do you really know they only spend a few thousand on an ordinary one or did you just pull that number out of your ass? Cuz I have no idea what the murder investigation budget is.
To play the devil’s advocate, it is scientific fact that people are less deterred by gravity of punishment than certainty of punishment. if you understand the police’s job as both preventing crime and investigating crime, than crime prevention is the more important job than crime investigation, because every victim would be the happiest if they never had been a victim. So it is logical, that if a crime happened, you want to investigate and if possible, use the investigation to prevent crime. As perceived certainty is such a good deterrent of crime, you want to be perceived as highly successful with investigations and therefore punishment as highly likely.
So that brings you in the situation where an investigation has a higher value for the police when the investigation is in the news, as a success in that investigation will raise the perceived certainty of punishment more, compared to a “unknown” crime. As the value is higher, the resources spend on it can be higher too, as long as the additional funds are relative to the additional value of the investigation.
It seems immoral to spend more resources on high profile cases, as it seems to value certain lives more but arguably it raises the safety of everyone by making punishment seem more certain.
Obvious counterpoint: If you know that they are doing that, you aren’t perceiving them as successful in the average investigation and there you don’t feel like punishment is certain, or more certain.
Interesting article, but it says this $17.25 million figure includes besides police and court expenses, lost time for the victim and perp, and “estimates on the public’s resulting willingness to pay to prevent future violence.” And I don’t think they mention whether it includes incarceration costs. The detailed version still didn’t shine any light on any of that, or anything about the research team’s methodology. But that number definitely isn’t what people are talking about when they say, “Police spend $x to investigate crime A and only $y to investigate crime B.”
I saw nothing.
Imagine being the bystander who nopes out in the video - I bet their immediate future involved a serious change of underwear.
What do you think thr 1950s was? The giant boom following USA government subsidies of the middle class, courtesy of FDR. The 1950s had a raging lack of equality, and were in part sustained on the backs of women, but that’s another discussion. It would not have happened at all, in any format, without government subsidy.
From FDR to 1981, an American middle class was subsidized. American labor was valued. You could say it was one of our best commodities, for everyone concerned.
Then, in 1981, the format switched. The idea was, the most financially efficient way to run America was to subsidize the investors and corporate. As such, the wealth would then trickle down to all parts of society, enriching the nation as a whole with this fantastical efficiency. Subsidizing the middle class was systematically broken, overturned, and the subsidies were then given to investors and corporate.
American labor was systemically devalued.
Which brings us to present day. Biden did start to pick away it the 1981-2020 travesty, but fixing broken things takes time, and this broken thing will take more than a couple years to fix. Some teamsters got to keep their retirement, infrastructure will slowly feed us in years to come, but it’s not enough, and it’s certainly not something that even helps most of our day to days as of yet.
Well, that ended this year.
And now we have the people subsidized and grown fat from the 1981-2020 structure in charge.
What will happen next?
Will American labor regain its value? Will we subsidize a middle class instead of the upper tier of individuals, the very people running the show now, going forward? Or will we all be financially squeezed even further beyond our capacities?
We will have to wait and see.
Of course it is, just look at Elon and Vivek drooling over their possibilities. Fuck them both.
The police, in their fear of having their names on searchable and public property deeds, regularly rent at a discount from the rich.
The police don’t rent cheap places from the poor. The police rent from the rich. It is not because the rich are better people. It is because they have the wealth to give to the violent.
It seems to me that we as a people could press vocally but not violently at this collusion of economic class warfare to force change.
Press on the rich that enable police abuse under to cover of cheap or free rent and ANONYMITY
Stop the vassal state.
Where you are from police rent?
Squeaky wheels get the grease.
Yeah, and when the machine is specifically for directing murder, some of them are considered features rather than bugs.
than* 🫣
selfresponsibility. if u rich as fuck and ppl around u are poor as fuck you might want to pay for security yourself when a country cant even protect its weakest citizens.
I’ve been thinking that myself. At a certain level of money, you probably ought to be treated with Telvanni conventions.
Well we could ask the same question when Notre dame de Paris burned, how many millions went to rebuild it?
I respect the arts and the building is an important part of French history which is important.
I would however say that it is interesting that we cannot raise money for charities but if an art building burn oh well… Let the millions pour in…
Removed by mod
Oh yeah, and they should get extra rights too!
Oh they do? I thought they off shored it all or kept it in assets / investments which haven’t been “realized” despite earning millions / billions. Oh my bad, good thing they all pay their fair share in that case, yay rich people! 🤑
Removed by mod
Good
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Maybe it’s a good reason to reduce public spending in general. People act like public spending is a way to even things out, but in practice as the post evidences, the more we tax and the more the government spends the more wealth has actually been concentrated.
It surely matters how that money is spent. So a better solution would be to redirect some of the police funding to social programs.
People fall into the trap of thinking of things in broad terms like “taxes good/bad” or “regulations good/bad”. There are benefits and drawbacks for each individual tax/regulation/policy/etc. What is clear is that the government tends to work for the benefit of the rich, which is a natural consequence of the influence of money in politics, and we certainly need to do something about that, but the system will be heavily resistant to such efforts.
Don’t worry, nuance and complexity are things you start to pick up as you get into your 20s :)
