Posted on 03/22/2012 5:32:17 AM PDT by rellimpank
If the nation has a more data-driven police chief than Milwaukee’s Edward A. Flynn, we’d like to know.
We think his middle initial might stand for Analysis.
Yet we couldn’t help wonder about a statistical claim that Flynn, a former Massachusetts public safety commissioner under then-Gov. Mitt Romney, made on Feb. 9, 2012.
In the first of what are billed as monthly sit-downs with Milwaukee public radio station WUWM-FM (89.7), Flynn was asked which issues city residents say are most important for police to address.
Reducing "measurable" serious crime is a concern of both city and suburban Milwaukee residents, Flynn replied, adding:
"Perversely, in a way, people who actually live in the city recognize an extraordinary amount of our violent crime is highly concentrated among criminals perpetrating violence upon other criminals. It doesn't minimize its importance as a public safety issue; but they recognize that a lot of concerns in their neighborhoods are what we would call quality of life problems or lower-level crime problems.
(Excerpt) Read more at politifact.com ...
--had to shorten the title--
The old 80/20 rule at it again. We need to reconcile the difference between “repaying your debt to society” and “are you still a danger to the public if we let you out”. Career criminals only get to be that due to recidivism. Some criminals (probably 10-20%) can never be helped, will always be a danger, and should never leave prison - they know it, we know it, but the warped system ignores hard reality.
—ping—
—and then there is the sad state of cultural affairs, that approximately 12% of the population commits around 60% of violent crime, primarily against people of the same cultural group-—
Gang warfare?
Also known as Holder's People.
An easy way to severely reduce this statistic:
1) Eliminate gangsters killed by other gangsters with *illegal* weapons. These “turf” shootings are far more indicative of gang activity than they are about legal gun use, yet because both shooter and victim have extensive arrest records, it creates a false impression *even* of criminals, as a whole.
2) With the acceptance by many states of the right to carry guns, the number of violent criminals shot by honest citizens jumps. This is a very positive effect of guns, compared to these honest citizens being defenseless before criminals. Shootings of criminals is a fair trade off for a major decline in successful crime.
This is why PoltiFact is a jock. I read the PDF of the report (mainly bar graphs and the like) and came to the conclusion that what the mayor said was true. The nitpicking (he said 85% but it is 77%) was undercut by an error in teh original report by PolitiFact.
Thanks for linking. I love reading garbage. This made my Garbage Day.
Sounds good. Why not just wall them all in, and send Snake Pliskin in if things get out of hand?
My take away from the article was, J.Q. Public is interested more in quality of life crimes and let the gun thugs kill one another. Just control the stray bullets.
Since criminals don’t obey the law [It’s what makes them criminals after all] gun control laws won’t have any effect on them and will only serve to disarm the innocent.
The obvious conclusion should be that such laws won’t do as intended and only serve to empower criminals and the government.
Why would free-citizens want this done?
A huge segment of murders are scum killing scum at no net loss to society.
This is not news.
From the Naked Gun,
“No sir, the penalty for killing a gang member in this state is a ten-dollar fine, you can mail it in.”
Until “black culture” is fixed, overt racial profiling in the area of law enforcement, and larger prisons in the area of protecting the public, are the only sane answers.
Wisconsin Criminal Statistice in Milwaukee ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
,,,, no surprise here ,, the shock may be they have more rights than do innocent victims of their crimes .
Who pays for the prisons?
Corpses don’t need prison.
Oh, the other guy. Well, having relieved us of the burden of one scumbag, we probably, show after prison expense, net profit, a net profit. After all, that way we have TWO less scumbags costing society, and only had to imprison one...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.