There are no winners or losers here. This is not a game where someone lose or someone wins. Just a great sadness and disappointment in how prior chiefs ran their regiment. One that promoted cracking heads, polarizing and encouraged creating volatile situations, promoting fear and intimidation, and sending their posse out to silence anyone who attempted to complain, rather reaching out to the people and public and at least attempting to promote peace.

For reasons I won't go into on this board, I don't think I can ever fully trust police again. However, I do believe Chief Dodd is one of the good guys. Someone who can return policing under his charge back to being peace officers, serving and protecting ALL citizens. The dept. lost some potentially good cops because they didn't want to work with or around the bullies and hot-heads, as one once told me.

I've never met the chief personally, and likely never will. But you don't have to be in physical presence or close proximity to a person to know they have good character, values and compassion. It's the way they carry themselves and the look in their eyes. The eyes really are the window into ones soul.

GIVE HIM A CHANCE To turn things around for the better.

Likely, my last post here.

So, degage, you can't disprove it either.

Why don't you let rick1 out to speak for himself?

Going to work. Will catch up with you later.

Facts, stop your rambling. Take your meds. Chill.

Addressing the oftetimes multiple and complex realities to such problems isn't supporting crime or criminal activity. Denying there are multiple causes and sources to the problem is the true and greatest threat. One that only guarantees the problems with not only continue but escalate.

Reality is not hate.....it's just REALITY! To ignore the various causes and effects is the greatest form of hate.

Former gang members face the same risks as witnesses in violent crimes that testify-

And the same risks good cops face who attempt to expose bad cops.

Actually, degage, my only stand is you and yours can't blame social programs or any of their alleged failures soley on Democrats. It was the rules change and strings attached, created and supported by Republicans during that period, after LBJ signed the war on poverty bill that heavily affected the outcome you and yours blame on the Democrats today.

In fact, before the Civil Rights Movement, the very ones who later attacked social programs had been all for them, as long as they remained exclusive.

And I won't get into a tit-for-tat or a one-upper here with you, rick1 or anyone from your ilk. Any adult from that time period, 1970s(?) who doesn't have dementia yet, and is truthful and honest can likely recall the open hostitlity against the poor, and the resentment of LBJ's war on poverty bill coming from members of the Republican Party, some locals even.

While the "most important organization for dealing with gangs is the police."

Not when the most nefarious gang organization in existence IS your friendly average, on the beat, police unit. That's where the bulk of the problem(s) exist. Admitting that is where you'll find solutions. Bad and dirty policing have played a major role in crime escalation and the deterioration in struggling poor communities. Denial only guarantees there will be no solutions, and any gains will be lost at some near future date.

rick1 said... In Jesse's post he mentions the war on poverty set in motion the break down of the family in the black community and I provided a comment made by The Late Daniel Patrick Moynihan Former N.Y.U.S. Senator (D)where he is confirming what Jesse posted. The conversation dealt with the war on poverty breaking down the families in the black community.

That was one man's opinion. It wasn't the welfare program(s), but rules and retstrictions that accompanied created, primarily by republicans when they overwelmingly briefly gained control, that led to creating more poverty and dependency.

Please provide the name or names of the Republican(s) that you alleged made the comment "We'll take care of the women and children, but only if there's no man in the house."

Unlike you who conveniently latch onto the opinion of one individual to boost your stance, and as there was no Internet at that time, I can't magically go back to something that occured more than 40 years ago and magically start to pull names from anyone one specific hat. As there were many saying the same or similar thing from the Republican side. However, there should be tv footage, even locally, because local stations aired the interviews. So maybe you can contact some local station and see if they're willing to go back and pull up some old footage.

rick1 said: "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States." The Late Daniel Patrick Moynihan Former N.Y.U.S. Senator (D)

But rick, how can that be? Welfare programs aren't race based. They are need based, and are open to anyone who qualify regardless of race. In fact, it's already been proven more whites receive welfare than blacks. It wasn't all that long ago you guys were whining and snotting all over the place attacking Hispanics, and claiming they were overwhelmingly receiving welfare benefits. Can't you guys make up your minds on who you hate the most? One day it's blacks. The next day it's Jews. The next it's Muslims, Hispanics? Who next? You're running out of racial groups to hate. At the rate you're going, the only thing left is to turn on one another.

jesse said... Tirna, O K so what if the stats are not spot on, they STILL are indicative of whats goin on!

Not really, jesse.

jesse said... When L.B.J. started his govmt.funded vote buying scheme,(war on poverty) w/the provision that a household was ineligible for support if the father was in residence

Wrong, again, jesse. LBJ may have signed the war on poverty, but it was later when Repubs overwhemingly got briefly elected in the various offices that they, not LBJ's intent, started the process of dismantling, sabotagin and changing his tentions. To this day, I can still recall some of the things they, Repubs, said in interviews. Such as, "We'll take care of the women and children, but only if there's no man in the house."*

jesse, I've seen those statistics. But statistic reporting of crime to the FBI is voluntary. Some cities and towns, not wanting the negative image, downplay crimes while others might over-report any and everything as a criminal act. I take all polls, statistic reportings with an entire salt-mine, and not just with a grain of salt.

But let us just say on the slightest chance those statistics you list are at least somewhat accurate. Shouldn't we look for the triggers and host source? Or is America too afraid of what taking too close a look might reveal?