Recent comments in /f/philadelphia

TheMegatrizzle t1_je5ggr4 wrote

Everyone here is complaining about Amen Brown, while I'm rooting for him to win because he is my cousin. He may burn the city to the ground, but at least I will be able to gloat to everyone that my cousin is mayor! /s

(He is really my cousin tho, he's my great uncle's grandson)

6

QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5frjf wrote

Yes, what is the purpose of temporary deterrence? I mean saving only a few poor peoples lives really worth the effort anyway?

This is the definition of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

I agree, we need to fix policing. But why the heck does that forsake doing anything else until we fix police? I mean do you expect someone to wave a wand to fix police, or more realistically , understand huge change like that will take years. Saying 500+ need to die a year so you can moral grandstand on whats the BEST way to saves lives and lower crime smacks of entitlement rather than someone actually trying to help the citizens of the nation's poorest big city.

Again, anyone who is actually close to crime, lost loved ones, or lives in fear, would love to hear steps being taken, even if it only saves 25 ppl. But those that live in nice neighborhoods are fine watching the city burn so they can feel morally righteous about the policies they espouse.

I care about the citizens, not some ideological bullshit to feel warm inside. If dudes in Army fatigues can save people from dying, it's worth a try as we work through fixing other institutions in the city. It's not one or the other, it can EASILY be both.

2

NonIdentifiableUser t1_je5ehyb wrote

So what happens when the national guard inevitably leaves? Or should we just have a military presence in our city in perpetuity? We have a police force for a reason, fix that before we start having the fucking army standing on our corners like we live in some failed state. (Though - I will admit I do sometimes feel like we are headed there, nationwide, with the pure dysfunction and lack of accountability in government.)

Most of the shootings are targeted, so unless they’re gonna pull detective duty and/or stay indefinitely, I don’t know what a temporary deterrence is going to do to actually solve the problem instead of just kicking the can down the road.

5

QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5d6di wrote

Yes, I'm sure no one will think twice about pulling a drive by or shooting when they see armed military guards near by.

Do you think there is anything that deters criminals at all then? Are all the studies that show having active police presence lowers crime in an area just wrong? Will criminals happily pop shots off at dudes in army fatigues and AR-15s?

If that's the case, we are fucked period and nothing can be done to help the city's crime problem.

I just fine it crazy that the city is the DEADLIEST EVER and people are content not trying new things to deal with it. Must be nice being so separated from this violent crime you don't think we need to try anything new to help citizens.

−7

John_EightThirtyTwo t1_je5c8ud wrote

Reply to comment by monkeymaxx in 22nd and Arch (1970) by mikeyv683

No, it's The Arches, the row of condos that look like Monopoly hotels. (to me, anyway). So when you're going up 22nd, they're on your left after you pass Arch.

SLA was catty-corner from this site (of The Arches and formerly the Electric Factory), on the southeast corner. They seem to have moved, though. I think they're at the main school district building on North Broad.

1

NonIdentifiableUser t1_je5btb2 wrote

If gangs start targeting randos or something, sure. Otherwise I’m not sure what having a military presence in a major US city will do other than make things worse. They’re not gonna actually have an police powers so they’ll be glorified security guards with high powered rifles. Made sense when there was rampant property crime during the riots, not so much now.

7