It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Camden, N.J., to lose nearly half its cops

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
Camden NJ is disgusting!!! I can not even describe it with words. You cannot go into that city with your windows down and doors unlocked at any time of day. There are gang bangers, drug dealers and hookers on every corner. The cops in that city are busy all the time with violent crime and drug trafficking. They are not sitting on their asses eating doughnuts, they have too much to do. I lived 8 miles from this city in NJ, and the only time I would come close is to cross the Ben Franklin bridge into Philadelphia. Everyone knows if you're going to Camden, you're going there for no good. It is a huge mistake to take the cops out of Camden.
That might explain the problem right there. If the economy is based on drugs and prostitution, those professions don't pay taxes, so no wonder they can't afford to keep a large police force!




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Maybe it won't be that bad. Didn't the same thing happen in LA? Everybody made a big stink out of it but I haven't really seen anything on the news about it after it was done. Did crime go even higher in LA?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I have been to Camden and it makes Newark NJ seem like Beverly Hills.

If you know anything about Camden you wouldn’t even go in the city and they want to do this; it is an outrage

Thank the ignorant governor Christie for some of this.

Camden is the worst city in the US as far as crime and poverty; believe me this is a disaster.

This is another instance of this fake budget scam they are running on the American people; it’s happening all over the country.

Kudos to them in Illinois were they had the balls to raise taxes



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by alchemist2012


Have we really sank this far into debt,That we can no longer afford to pay Law Enforcement at the local level.How can a municipality be in such dire strights that they have to cut the Police Dept. in half?

Could not the mayor of Candem see this coming?.I'm sure budget concerns like these do not sneak up on you.Is this going to be like a dominoe effect that sends this country into a Mad Max/Road Warrior type society(I hope not).

Camden N.J. has a suffering crime ratre so how can they do a better job of protecting citizens with a slimmer Police force???

money.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


This is good news. Less jackboots = more freedom.

when you talk about a city being "crime ridden", you have to consider that a lot of that is drug related. Victimless crimes. I bet if you legalized prostitution and drugs, you would end up with lower crime. Instead of crack houses, you would have legitimate businesses selling it. And theft? Without artificially increasing the price through laws, it becomes a more affordable commodity. Not to mention all the crime that comes with making something a black market product (Prohibition is a good example).



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This is good news. Less jackboots = more freedom.

when you talk about a city being "crime ridden", you have to consider that a lot of that is drug related. Victimless crimes. I bet if you legalized prostitution and drugs, you would end up with lower crime. Instead of crack houses, you would have legitimate businesses selling it. And theft? Without artificially increasing the price through laws, it becomes a more affordable commodity. Not to mention all the crime that comes with making something a black market product (Prohibition is a good example).


Well this is a change, you and I usually agree on things, but in this case I must disagree.

The use of the term 'jackboots' to describe the Camden police force is, I feel, a little short sighted and not accurate, I know quite a number of them, and althought there are times when a police officer can descibed as you have, I think in this situation its more of a balnket statement and not accurate.

As well, the drug epidemic is not entirely victimless, and although the effects of the use affect inly the user, it also has a corollary effect on many, many others

Legalizing drugs would, of course, lower crime rates because it decriminalizes certain actions that would otherwise be crimes, so by default the raw number of crimes committed would decrease, but the lower crime rate would not be refelctive of the overall drug problem.

The cost of said drugs would increase, due to the fact that actual chemists would be charged with manufacture, not some guy in the back of his van in a dark alley with subpar supplies. Sure enough insurance would cover the cost of 'prescriptions' but there are plenty of users who do not have insurance, as they are unemployed and unable to get coverage.

So we would still have unemployed, uninsured users trying to maitain their addictions. The thefts related to drug use would still continue as the price at the pharmacy would reflect the higher levels of manufacture.

With that being said, I have to respectfully disagree.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Seems like a trend with state governments. Cut essential services that are the true domaine of the states and keep funding social programs, excessive union pension funds, welfare programs, et al. God forbid we cut money going to the moocher class, in lieu of keeping police and fire protection.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


We don't have to agree.

I refer to all police as "Jackboots". They are the enforcement arm of a tyrannical set of 600,000 laws. It is nothing personal about them, but rather a condemnation of the job they are doing of enforcing tyranny.

I think that, once legal, drugs would not climb in price. The model i am looking at is Prohibition.

Prohibition is what gave rise to the current political structure, not to mention the "underground" money. Prohibition drove crime to sky high levels. Once prohibition was repealed, crime decreased. I am seeing it from a "net gain" position.

We don't see drug stores being robbed today. So dispensing it could be safe. But i also don't think that some drugs should require a prescription either.

People are going to get what they want, regardless of laws. Look at what we have today...do our drug laws make any difference? Really? Is there a drop in drug use in areas with stricter drug laws? I know in my town there is a zero tolerance for marijuana, with any amount getting you taken in to jail (instead of just a ticket). Yet the whole town seems to smoke pot. They can try to stop it from coming in, and locals just start growing their own. People are meant to be free, and will seek freedom in defiance of the law.

So, what do we get from it? 3 million people (that is 1/10 of our population) locked in prison, being unproductive, draining our tax dollars, not providing a raising to their children, and creating a whole new generation of problems.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
People are meant to be free, and will seek freedom in defiance of the law.



Although we have disagreed here, the above is one comment that I can not, nor can anyone, really disagree.
I always love reading what you have to say on topics, but havnt seen you around lately.
It was good to have this discource this morning.

You are right, people will yearn to be free, even in defiance of the law.
However when the defiance is because its the law, and not for freedom, is when defiance loses.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
this is not good... first detroit, now camden.. is this a precursor to what is to come for the rest of the country?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Good Lord! Why are cops and fireman the first to go?? How about laying off the construction and pot hole filling crews/contracts first? Look we all know exactly why they lay off those individuals first - to get attention and scare monger the constituents into high taxes. There are a thousand other ways to cut the budget than to touch police, fireman, and schools. How about a 5% pay cut across the board for state employees? How much would that save?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Good Lord! Why are cops and fireman the first to go?? How about laying off the construction and pot hole filling crews/contracts first? Look we all know exactly why they lay off those individuals first - to get attention and scare monger the constituents into high taxes. There are a thousand other ways to cut the budget than to touch police, fireman, and schools. How about a 5% pay cut across the board for state employees? How much would that save?


Well knowing the locale like I do, the police and firemen are paid from the city budget while the road work employees are county and state employees.

I am sure that some amount of revenue sharing beytween the local, county and state programs could have been worked out, but Camden carries so much of a stigma around here because of the crime and drugs, many of the other municipalities would not take too kindly to sharing their revenue with the city.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


We don't have to agree.

I refer to all police as "Jackboots". They are the enforcement arm of a tyrannical set of 600,000 laws. It is nothing personal about them, but rather a condemnation of the job they are doing of enforcing tyranny.

I think that, once legal, drugs would not climb in price. The model i am looking at is Prohibition.

Prohibition is what gave rise to the current political structure, not to mention the "underground" money. Prohibition drove crime to sky high levels. Once prohibition was repealed, crime decreased. I am seeing it from a "net gain" position.

We don't see drug stores being robbed today. So dispensing it could be safe. But i also don't think that some drugs should require a prescription either.

People are going to get what they want, regardless of laws. Look at what we have today...do our drug laws make any difference? Really? Is there a drop in drug use in areas with stricter drug laws? I know in my town there is a zero tolerance for marijuana, with any amount getting you taken in to jail (instead of just a ticket). Yet the whole town seems to smoke pot. They can try to stop it from coming in, and locals just start growing their own. People are meant to be free, and will seek freedom in defiance of the law.

So, what do we get from it? 3 million people (that is 1/10 of our population) locked in prison, being unproductive, draining our tax dollars, not providing a raising to their children, and creating a whole new generation of problems.



BFFT, you sir are my hero. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said....I've often pitied the poor slob who gets popped for possession with intent 2 wks before his drug of choice is legalized. I have often preached to my older children, be aware of the state of prohibition we live in, and understand that there are better alternatives to demon drink, but they are simply on the wrong side of the law at this time. One day, it will change. One day.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
However when the defiance is because its the law, and not for freedom, is when defiance loses.


And i certainly agree with that. Obstinance for the sake of obstinence is not a strategy, to be sure.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Camden is not as bad as people make it out to be.
There are 4 colleges within its borders, a very nice concert venue, a very nice baseball park and a few theatres that offer some quality shows.


You forgot the most decorated warship in naval history, the Battleship New Jersey. Maybe they can use that for a few fire control missions.....



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


The media honed in on Al Capone and other big time gangsters, which gave us the impression crime was up so much and these gangsters were dangerous. They killed other gangsters. You never heard of drive by shootings killing innocent children, or the violence being widespread unto the general public. It just didn't happen.

We have a new generation of people pushing these illegal drugs now. They are not glamourized by the media like the bootleggers were, nor they should be. Most of these people are low lifes who have no value of anything except money. They DO murder innocent people. It is absolutley disgusting. You cannot live in a city so highly involved in the drug trade because the people in it are the scum of the earth and don't care who they hurt. Was it the same back in the day in Chicago with people fearing for their lives because of drug violence?

So say we make drugs legal, and tax 'em and everything. These people will still be cutting coke, gorwing pot, and making meth for a cheaper price than the government regualted set prices.

My fun days are over. I think drugs are bad, yes even pot because of some of the lives I've seen it destroy, just like alcohol does too. I don't know what the solution of the problem is, but there are many factors to consider. Should people be prosecuted for a few grams of pot? No. Should it be legal to sell? I don't know.

Camden NJ is a prime example of what drugs do to a society.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


The media honed in on Al Capone and other big time gangsters, which gave us the impression crime was up so much and these gangsters were dangerous. They killed other gangsters. You never heard of drive by shootings killing innocent children, or the violence being widespread unto the general public. It just didn't happen.

We have a new generation of people pushing these illegal drugs now. They are not glamourized by the media like the bootleggers were, nor they should be. Most of these people are low lifes who have no value of anything except money. They DO murder innocent people. It is absolutley disgusting. You cannot live in a city so highly involved in the drug trade because the people in it are the scum of the earth and don't care who they hurt. Was it the same back in the day in Chicago with people fearing for their lives because of drug violence?

So say we make drugs legal, and tax 'em and everything. These people will still be cutting coke, gorwing pot, and making meth for a cheaper price than the government regualted set prices.

My fun days are over. I think drugs are bad, yes even pot because of some of the lives I've seen it destroy, just like alcohol does too. I don't know what the solution of the problem is, but there are many factors to consider. Should people be prosecuted for a few grams of pot? No. Should it be legal to sell? I don't know.

Camden NJ is a prime example of what drugs do to a society.


Why would you allow the government to set prices? I do not mean this in any negative way, but are you from America? In America the government doesn't set prices for things (at least, not officially, although Medicare tends to do it unofficially). Prices are set through supply vs demand in a free market. If there is a demand, the price will be higher. Right now, drugs tend to have an artificial scarcity created by drug seizures, as well as a cost included for the risk the supply chain takes in delivering it to you. Prices will not be higher in a legalized drug culture. They will be lower.

Why would people be cutting coke? Do they do that with liquor? I mean, maybe in Kentucky you still find some bootleggers with stills. But for the most part (and especially in the cities), people buy booze via a store.

Why would you mind people growing their own pot? Do you take offense to them growing their own tomatoes? And if someone decides to ruin their lives using drugs, why should it be up to me to say that they can't? Since we are mentioning it, you DO notice that all the drug laws we have didn't do anything to prevent those ruined lives you refer to, right? All we did was make it harder for them to get the drugs, make them more expensive when they got them, and then made society to house and feed them when they were arrested. I don't see how anyone is winning in that scenario.

I don't see anything that is realistic in your concerns. Like i said, if you use booze and the prohibition as a guide, it would seem that ORGANIZED crime would be dealt a harmful blow by removing a large revenue stream and that the street pushers and junkies would be pushed to purchase their commodity via a store or shop of some kind.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by alchemist2012
 


I've seen camden first hand, and to be honest, I doubt it could get much worse. It's easily the most dangerous city on the east coast. To releave half the police force is completely irresponsible,and considering the amount of money that funds the war effort in the middle east, the country couldn't spare enough to keep our own streets safe? Most illogical...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Yes, I was born and raised in America.

I don't believe in demand as being a factor for some things in the marketplace. Look at cigarettes. Many Americans don't smoke. Where the hell is the demand? In Euorpe and especially Eastern Europe, the large majority of people smoke. Why are cigarettes $8 a pack here, and $1 in Russia; even the same brands (Marlboro) ? But prices for liquor is largely the same. I think the government does have more control over these types of things than we think.

I don't think the governent would allow for drugs to be set to a low price. Could you imagine if drug prices were lower, and a hit of acid was a couple bucks, a gram of coke would be five bucks? Many more people would explore the possibilities of drug use. No, you are right, I don't care what people choose to do with themselves, but I sure as hell am not going to live next to people addicted to drugs who could be a threat to myself and my family ( ever see people on '___', meth, pcp??? ). I don't want to live in the same environment as these people. In my opinion if you legalize drugs, and as you said, the price drops, then this is what I predict will happen.

Ther drug laws DO prevent people from making stupid decisions. People don't want anything to do with drugs because their lives, jobs, and family would be destroyed if they were caught. Some people it doesn't deter, obviously, but it does to a lot.

I am totally against organized crime. Maybe the US court system should grow some balls and throw these people in jail without giving them a slap on the wrist 10 times before putting them in prison. That is where I believe the US should start.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Why are cigarettes $8 a pack here, and $1 in Russia; even the same brands (Marlboro) ? But prices for liquor is largely the same. I think the government does have more control over these types of things than we think.



Well the government does have alot to do with the final price you pay.

Its caled a sin tax, that is why here in my state the prices are close to $8 but across the state line it is closer to $5. There are both federal and state taxes on these products.

In fact just this past year Obama signed into action an increase on the sin tax on cigarettes.
For every pack that is purchased $1.01 goes to the federal govt.

source

But we are getting a little off topic here....
edit on 18-1-2011 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




The problem with that theory is the ones they cut will surely be the ones looking after serious crime.. There's no way they will cut their "revenue raising" traffic cops..


That sounds a lot like the response the F.O.P. would give defending any cuts.
You're not the F.O.P. are you?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join