Over fifty years ago, the results of a study on police patrol and crime reduction were published. Liberal pundits who knew nothing about law enforcement proclaimed that it demonstrated that police patrols did nothing to deter crime. They were wrong then. Now the Wall Street Journal demonstrates that liberals have learned nothing. They continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Six Words? WSJ’s Deeply Deceptive Analysis Of ‘Stand Your Ground’ And Self-Defense – HotAir
The WSJ breathlessly proclaims that “stand your ground laws” have increased the number of “justified homicides”. Civilians are killing more felons than the police. They are wrong. Remember, figures lie and liars’ figure. Actually, civilians are killing more felons across the board. The trend holds true whether a particular state has implemented a stand your ground law or not.
Back to the Kansas City experiment. The Kansas City PD experiment used three similar police patrol districts. One served as the control and continued a business-as-usual stance. All police patrols in another district were suspended. Cops responded to calls for service but did not patrol the area. The number of cops in the third district increased. Added cops meant increased patrols.
Drum roll please… Crime increased in the control district and the district with increased police patrols. It decreased in the district with no police patrols. Faulty premises, meet faulty results. Recall the philosophical mind game, a favorite among navel gazers: “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it; does it make a sound?”
Faulty Premise #1: The source for the crime figures in the three patrol districts came from the police. There are two problems here. First, what is being measured is the number of crimes reported rather than the number of crimes that actually occurred. There’s a thing called observation bias. The fact that a particular object was selected for study introduces changes that did not previously exist. The cops in the control district may not have known what the study entailed. You can bet they knew they were being observed. The effect, on those cops, was to be extra attentive. Things that they might normally have let slide now triggered enforcement action. Even a two-year-old knows not to raid a watched cookie jar.
Faulty Premise #2: The absence of police contributed to the absence of crime. This is partly covered above. Crime likely remained unchanged. What dropped was the reporting of crimes.
Faulty Premise #3: Increased police presence contributed to increased crime. No, increased police presence led to increased crime reporting. I’ve been a retired cop for almost twenty years. Prior to that I was assigned to an investigative unit for fifteen years. That means I have to reach back thirty-five years to dwell on my patrol experience. Cue the old fart line. Back in my day… Rain or shine the only time my driver’s window was closed was when I was not in the patrol car. When I started, as a cop, patrol cars didn’t have “good times” radios. Listening was part of patrol. Patrol meant not only answering calls. It also meant being alert to possibilities. I predate Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street fame. I have referred to them as the two great investigators. Sing along with me: “which one of these things are not like the other…” Maybe they stole that from me. As a supervisor, I measured a patrol cops worth by on-sights.
Any idiot can look nifty in a uniform and drive around aimlessly. On-sight activity separates the Pogues from the true cops. I will explain the term for those that don’t know, like the folks that put together the Kansas City study or lauded the results. On-sight activity is officer generated. There is no call for service. Likely, there is no supervisor pointing and saying look at that! Nope it’s a patrol officer that sees something or somebody and says to himself, WTF? Then he stops to find out the answer. What follows runs the gambit from innocent activity explained to blazing gun battles and everything in between.
Nobody called Popeye Doyle of “French Connection” fame. The largest seizure of heroin in NYPD history at the time, came about because two tired detectives stopped for a drink and observed an unusual gathering of mobsters. They were off duty. They could have blown off what they saw. Instead, they said WTF. What followed; aw watch the movie.
Statistics don’t tell all of the story, possibly not even half. Statistically, any HEB grocery store, in San Antonio at least, is ground zero for drug deals. Forget the dingy back rooms and rat-infested alleys of TV. Want to observe a dope deal? Go to HEB. Is this an HEB attempt to capture the market? Nope. Part of the negotiation in conducting a drug transaction is settling on a venue. HEB is an acceptable venue to the crooks and police. Thus, we have a Hobson’s choice. Is HEB an acceptable location because it is a high crime area? Does the police choice of HEB as a suitable venue for a dope deal, make it a high crime area? Statistics don’t lie. They also don’t reveal the truth. Tree, forest.
What did the Kansas City study prove? It proved that the hundred-dollar hammers that the Air Force bought were a bargain. There is no telling how many hammers the Air Force could have bought if only they had the funds expended on the Kansas City study.
Yeah, so? How does ancient history relate to current events?
The premise of the WSJ article seems to be cause and effect. Stand your ground states contribute to an increase in felon deaths. That premise has already been defeated in the article, above. How about another cause-and-effect question?
How many dead felons were out on bond or released outright at the time of their untimely demise? Does the jurisdiction that released them on an unsuspecting public bear any responsibility? Had they been safely incarcerated they wouldn’t have been in a position to be shot.
Continuing with cause-and-effect questions, how did the reaction to the justified shooting of Michael Brown in 2015 and the pig pile on George Floyd impact the police response to violent confrontations? Refer to the chart and notice the downward trend since 2015.
I’m old school. I worked a lot of investigations targeting crack dealers on the east side of San Antonio. Several times I would contact the officer assigned to a particular neighborhood and ask about a specific address. The first time I did this the patrol officer replied, “that’s a dope house.” I figured great! He probably has a list of people associated with the place. Nope, nada, nothing. His explanation, ” I didn’t want to get involved.” After I pointed out that he was a cop and was supposed to get involved. I wasn’t allowed to talk to patrol officers anymore. I admit it. I made my point in a much longer soliloquy with many more four-letter words. This took place twenty years ago and it has only gotten worse.
I worked on patrol with a fat stupid sergeant. He was a coward. I called him “happy meal.” He would show up for shift in uniform three hours early so that he could eat at his favorite restaurant for free. The Chief held him out as an example of an active officer. Month in and month out he led his shift in “on-sight activity”. He didn’t make any misdemeanor arrests, no felony arrests, no warrants and no investigations leading to a major crime. Nope, none. What he did do was grab yard sale, work from home and any other sign posted on utility poles or on the right-of-way. They represented a violation of a city ordinance. Each and every sign got a case number and was chalked up as an on-sight activity. Numbers don’t lie.
I suspect that more civilians are blowing up more felons because it is a target rich environment. Turds that should be in jail, based on prior performance, aren’t. The lack of sanctions indicates to the turds that there is no reason to modify their behavior. The fact that street cops are not being aggressive in confronting them only reinforces that belief.
I know from working undercover that crooks know when they get up in the morning that they are going to commit a crime. What they don’t know is what crime, where and against whom. They are opportunists. Aggressive patrol can upset the ability of turds to exploit the opportunity they may find in the next block. How does one measure that? Statistically, it can’t be done. “If a tree falls in the forest…”
The modern law enforcement default is to be risk adverse. It doesn’t pay to be a shit magnet anymore. Doubt me? Here’s an exercise you can try on your own. Next time you pull up next to a patrol car eye fuck the hell out of the officer. Chances are he/she or it will stare at the hood ornament of the patrol car. WARNING: Do not attempt this if the driver’s window is down and the officer displays hash marks on his sleeve stretching from wrist to elbow.
