The Red State Murder Problem

Why is anybody concerned about the minorities killing each other? If you thought there was going to be a different outcome then you really don't understand the root cause of the crime sweeping the nation.

Why is anybody concerned about the minorities killing each other? If you thought there was going to be a different outcome then you really don't understand the root cause of the crime sweeping the nation. Originally Posted by texassapper

What praytell is that? (As If nobody doesn’t know what you’re going to say, JL/UH/DSL/DBD/FF)

But back to the issue of crime. Is there a reason why none of those Republican run cities are ever on the evening news and the Democrat run cities like Chicago, Baltimore, LA., are? Can't be because Republicans are running most of the MSM. I'm just curious what others think about this. Why is Chicago and LA the ones on the news constantly while Jacksonville isn't. I would think the Democrat run MSM would be showing wall to wall crime in all those Republican cities. I wonder why they don't. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That's an easy answer-- because most of your "major media affiliates" are located in Chicago, DC, LA, and NYC. Higher viewership overall-- ergo, those cities are going to get the attention. A great example is this-- I live in Cincinnati. Last year, Cincinnati had a higher murder rate than Chicago-- but you'd never know it if all you have to go by is the national news... nobody cares about murder in Cincinnati-- a city of 300k. But murder in Chicago? That's a jackpot story.



Deep down.. most of your MSM doesn't care about much else aside from ratings. A story about crime in Chicago will get a lot more interest than a story about crime in Jacksonville. All media outlets survive off of advertising... MSM will always flow where the advertisers will get the most viewership and perceived "bang for their buck". Its all a trick and pony show.

That's an easy answer-- because most of your "major media affiliates" are located in Chicago, DC, LA, and NYC. Higher viewership overall-- ergo, those cities are going to get the attention. A great example is this-- I live in Cincinnati. Last year, Cincinnati had a higher murder rate than Chicago-- but you'd never know it if all you have to go by is the national news... nobody cares about murder in Cincinnati-- a city of 300k. But murder in Chicago? That's a jackpot story.



Deep down.. most of your MSM doesn't care about much else aside from ratings. A story about crime in Chicago will get a lot more interest than a story about crime in Jacksonville. All media outlets survive off of advertising... MSM will always flow where the advertisers will get the most viewership and perceived "bang for their buck". Its all a trick and pony show. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

That I did not know. I have never seen Cincinnati, on any crime list but I did notice that your Mayor is a Democrat.

That I did not know. I have never seen Cincinnati, on any crime list but I did notice that your Mayor is a Democrat. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Oh Cincinnati is a poster child for the claims of blue cities being horrible and I'm honestly surprised that Fox News doesn't focus on the city... it has had a Dem mayor for quite some time and the City Council is almost entirely Dem (There is 1 Republican for sure.. MAYBE 2... but the rest are all Dem). We had a shit ton of corruption issues last year including multiple indictments and scandals (unfortunately, last year 2 of the only 3 Republicans on council were caught up in pay for play type scandals).



But the only thing the media really focuses on here is the fact that OH-1 is one of the most horrifically gerrymandered districts in the US. To the point where the state was sued and LOST over it. We currently have two Republican House members here-- primarily because of how the districts are laid out. Unfortunately-- our rep on my side of the city (OH-1) doesn't do much of anything. I don't care either way about party affiliation as long as "shit gets done". Its the lack of shit getting done that annoys me-- you're getting paid awfully well to not do fuckall, ya know?




Here's an article about our bang-up start to the year....


https://700wlw.iheart.com/content/20...for-homicides/

no doubt that article is misleading due to the fact many cities are overwhelmingly Blue run.

different ways to count. squeeze a turnip, you get statistics.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Thank you for quoting the source of that saying.
A favourite of mine.

Oh Cincinnati is a poster child for the claims of blue cities being horrible and I'm honestly surprised that Fox News doesn't focus on the city... it has had a Dem mayor for quite some time and the City Council is almost entirely Dem (There is 1 Republican for sure.. MAYBE 2... but the rest are all Dem). We had a shit ton of corruption issues last year including multiple indictments and scandals (unfortunately, last year 2 of the only 3 Republicans on council were caught up in pay for play type scandals).



But the only thing the media really focuses on here is the fact that OH-1 is one of the most horrifically gerrymandered districts in the US. To the point where the state was sued and LOST over it. We currently have two Republican House members here-- primarily because of how the districts are laid out. Unfortunately-- our rep on my side of the city (OH-1) doesn't do much of anything. I don't care either way about party affiliation as long as "shit gets done". Its the lack of shit getting done that annoys me-- you're getting paid awfully well to not do fuckall, ya know?




Here's an article about our bang-up start to the year....


https://700wlw.iheart.com/content/20...for-homicides/ Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Learn something new everyday! But Grace, I'm a bit perplexed after listening to you describe your city, why you pushed back so much on cities with Democrats running them, as being no worse than the Republican one's. I have no doubt there are some poor run cities with Republican Mayor's for reasons I won't go into again but I believe there is a substantial difference there when the smoke clears. To me, it's been a universal understanding in the world of American politics that the Republican party has always been seen, talked about as the party tougher on crime. In those instances when it isn't, it can come down to the wrong man, woman or whatever, with either not having the money or co-operation or fortitude for the job.

I didn't "push back so much". I pointed out that there are issues with Republiacn ran major metros as there are with Democrat ran ones.



I generally don't post a lot in here unless I can offer some statistics, numbers, or hard data.


Its important to also note-- that whenever you vote on a Mayor or Governor or even a President that claims to be "hard on crime"... you clearly don't know what you're voting for. You want judges that are hard on crime-- the rest doesn't matter. Mayors and Governors don't control bail or sentencing (with the exception of any rules regarding mandatory sentences). We had a big hubbub on a local group about someone having their bail lowered only for them to get out and shoot someone else. The judge was a Republican.



Right now.. there is a big push in regard to the 8th Amendment and bail. So-- it seems Republican judges are being forced to choose between being tough on crime, or being a "Constitutionalist".

I didn't "push back so much". I pointed out that there are issues with Republiacn ran major metros as there are with Democrat ran ones.



I generally don't post a lot in here unless I can offer some statistics, numbers, or hard data.


Its important to also note-- that whenever you vote on a Mayor or Governor or even a President that claims to be "hard on crime"... you clearly don't know what you're voting for. You want judges that are hard on crime-- the rest doesn't matter. Mayors and Governors don't control bail or sentencing (with the exception of any rules regarding mandatory sentences). We had a big hubbub on a local group about someone having their bail lowered only for them to get out and shoot someone else. The judge was a Republican.



Right now.. there is a big push in regard to the 8th Amendment and bail. So-- it seems Republican judges are being forced to choose between being tough on crime, or being a "Constitutionalist". Originally Posted by Grace Preston

What would you consider “excessive” bail when a individual a commits a crime while brandishing a firearm.

If the individual had a gun, can’t the court assume he or she had there in case his or her victim put up any resistance and set bail accordingly?

It seems the Country is seeing far too many repeat offenders who were let out on PR only to go right back to what they do best.

There's a bigger issue with the notion of "excessive bail". Is it any less of a problem if a person who commits a violent crime is able to be released because they have money?


There are plenty of repeat offenders who are let out because they have money....



I personally don't believe that PR should be an option when there is a felony charge involved...

I'm very much in favor of ending the bail system. the system is arbitrary. civil libertarians may not like this.

this is what funds the court to some degree. this might've made sense during the 18th & 19th century.

in age of budgeting, theres enough funds to cover the courts costs.

I'm very much in favor of ending the bail system. the system is arbitrary. civil libertarians may not like this.

this is what funds the court to some degree. this might've made sense during the 18th & 19th century.

in age of budgeting, theres enough funds to cover the courts costs. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

That will never happen. Bail is a big money operation.

For violent crimes, bail should be equal to the defendant’s net worth.

There's a bigger issue with the notion of "excessive bail". Is it any less of a problem if a person who commits a violent crime is able to be released because they have money?


There are plenty of repeat offenders who are let out because they have money....



I personally don't believe that PR should be an option when there is a felony charge involved... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Agree 100% but this is the kind of case that test's that theory and has a lot of people upset but it's the law until the law is changed, period.


https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2022/07/11/over-150-pounds-crystal-meth-seized-manhattan



The investigation revealed that Santos had allegedly driven a rented vehicle across the country. Both shipments are believed to have originated in Mexico.
Estrada is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second and Third Degrees. Santos is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second, Third and Seventh Degrees.


Methamphetamine is a stimulant that speeds up the body’s system and comes as pill or powder. Crystal meth resembles glass fragments and is an altered version of the drug that is cooked with over-the-counter drugs in meth labs. Street names include: Meth, Speed, Ice, Shards, Bikers Coffee, Stove Top, Tweak, Yaba, Trash, Chalk, Crystal, Crank, or Shabu. Methamphetamine is highly addictive and can cause agitation, increased heart rate and blood pressure, increased respiration and body temperature, anxiety, and paranoia. In addition, high doses of methamphetamine can cause convulsions, cardiovascular collapse, stroke or death. More information can be found at www.dea.gov.


Estrada and Santos were arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court on Wednesday, July 6 and Saturday, July 9, 2022 respectively. Both were released on supervised release.


Under current New York State law, neither man could be charged with a bail eligible offense. Methamphetamine is categorized as a controlled substance, but not a narcotic drug. Regardless of the amount of methamphetamine involved, and regardless of a defendant’s lack of connections to New York State, under current law judges may not set bail on cases involving the possession of only methamphetamine.

For violent crimes, bail should be equal to the defendant’s net worth. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Can't agree with that. No bail for violent crimes. This is exactly what is happening now, violent criminals making bail only to commit another violent crime that could have been prevented.