Anyone who is concerned w/ St. Louis's high murder rate should mention the fact that Missouri just passed an even more permissive gun law that Democrats & some law enforcement officials believe will have a chilling effect in combatting and investigating gun-related crime.
Within the U.S.--including many major cities--murder rates fluctuate from year to year. St. Louis is a case in which we can see a clear trend of increasing homicides over the course of several years. This is indeed concerning.
The majority of victims of homicide in St. Louis are Black. Democrats should not shy away from stating there is a real issue. However, we, unlike the GOP, are offering real solutions, wheres the GOP is passing legislation that will make the problem *much* worse.
Solutions include, but are not limited to: gun regulation & increased social welfare. Other solutions that both national & local Democrats should push for are: 1. community-based policing & 2. allocating more funding to crime investigation (not necessarily street cops)
The homicide solve rate in St. Louis is abysmal. ~67% of homicides went unsolved in 2020. Community-based policing has been shown to correlate w/ an increased solve rate, as well as potential long-term decreases in crime.
I'm *not* saying we need to increase a standard police presence, (i.e. street cops). I *am* saying Democrats should advocate for more money to be devoted to investigations & that such investigations should be prioritized over, say, funding the surveillance of minor drug offenses.
Finally, Democrats should advocate for rooting out racism in St. Louis police departments. This goes hand in hand w/ community-based policing. If you do that, regulate guns, & increase solve-rates, you'll have a positive effect on the murder rate.
But the GOP doesn't actually care about the murder rate. They care about using the rate to fear-monger and fuel racist propaganda. If they cared, they wouldn't be making it easier for guns to proliferate while simultaneously making it harder to combat/investigate gun crime.
Meanwhile, as you hear a lot about the murder rate in St. Louis, you'll hear less about the community-based policing model employed in Camden, NJ, which is partially credited for bringing their homicide solve rate from 55% to 93.5%
Nor will you hear about the decreasing crime rate in West Memphis, which has also been attributed to community policing as well as increased police accountability to the community msn.com/en-us/news/cri…
I think some might see my advocating for greater focus on investigation as being overly pro-police. That's not how I mean it. I share the longterm goal of decreasing police as much as possible, especially through increased social welfare & gun control
That said, it's just a fact that homicide rates are too high & they won't immediately decelerate w/ increased social welfare. That takes time. I don't think homicides should be ignored. They should be investigated.
An interim plan is to re-allocate $$ to investigation of major crime over street policing of minor offenses. 1 way to do this is to focus on community ties & accountability. This means prioritizing investigation of major crime, bringing in community liasons, & rooting out racism

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mangy Jay

Mangy Jay Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @magi_jay

4 Jul
I wrote about George Packer's "4 Americas" & how it erases Black Americans & their diversity. White Americans get to be patriots or "social justice warriors," whereas Black Americans have no patriotic space of their own alternet.org/2021/06/four-a…
To be clear, I assign no positive/negative value to patriotism, though I do assign negative values to how it is often employed in white American culture. I am not, myself, patriotic.
I do not think--nor would it be my place to think--there is greater value in Black American patriotism than in any other estimation of the U.S., either neutral or negative

I *do* think it is reprehensible that Black American patriotism is erased from our national narrative
Read 5 tweets
4 Jul
I wrote a piece for @johnastoehr about how many non-conservative analysts are adopting a derisive view of modern social justice, resulting in depictions of the social left that are both inaccurate & ominous. Many of these critiques contain similar errors. stoehr.substack.com/p/that-the-gop…
These critiques begin by acknowledging that real social problems—such as racism—exist. However, after this concession, almost every critique devolves into a hodgepodge of vague stipulations disguised as a concern for the state of liberal debate. "There are problems, BUT. . . . ."
Commentators frequently frame responses to bigotry—such as protests, boycotts, or “cancelling”—as somehow a threat to free speech when, in fact, most of these responses are typically tantamount to *more* speech and consist of social consequences, not legal censorship.
Read 15 tweets
3 Jul
People keep telling me that some female athletes partially went thru "male puberty" & this should weigh into their qualification for the women's category. There is a huge amount of variation in many aspects of puberty & not a sharp line dividing all girls from all boys.
I don't think athletes should be eliminated based on testosterone levels in the first place. Given this rule exists, we should note it 1. only affects female athletes (cis or trans) & 2. is selectively applied to *testosterone* & not any number of other physiological differences
If the logic is that some women produce too much testosterone & that this gives them an unfair advantage over other women, this same rule should be applied to men. Men vary widely in testosterone production. More testosterone confers certain advantages.
Read 6 tweets
2 Jul
This is awful. There's a lot of individual variation in testosterone levels. Note, too, the illogic: a woman can have *too* much naturally-produced testosterone, which eliminates her, whereas the same is not true for men. So does the advantage not exist for men?
One thing I'm trying to get clear on: is testosterone testing *different* for men and women in the Olympics & other sports? This older article (2013) seems to imply that men are tested based on T/E ratio, but women are tested on absolute values. . . . sportsscience.co/supplements/ol….
I'm against any of this testing outside performance-enhancing drug detection. That said, it's even more atrocious if men are tested according to a ratio and women are tested according to an absolute value that arbitrarily determines whether they are in the "male range"
Read 7 tweets
2 Jul
Is there a different source than the Daily Mail on this?
The Biden admin has already been publishing summary statistics, though they haven't included sexual orientation (& I don't think they should!). &, while it's fine to publish gender *summaries*, it shouldn't be broken down by cis/trans.
In terms of the Senate, there is a real diversity problem. Schumer & the DSC should be pressured to recruit people of color as candidates, especially for diverse states. They have done that to some extent (Harrison, Cortez Masto, Padilla), but it should be a top priority.
Read 5 tweets
27 Jun
I'm interested in hearing from people who were either 1. personally engaged in any kind of social justice activism from ~1960-2010 or 2. highly tuned into such activism. What were points where ostensible allies &/or mainstream commentators said such movements were going too far?
For example, I'd be interested in hearing from LGBTQ people who remember AIDS activism about cases where people said, "I understand there's a real problem here, but you're going too far"
This is for a piece I'm working on, just FYI
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(