Something appears to be happening right now that could have a bigger impact on pro sports ever being the same again even than Corona virus, that is the unrest and lawlessness in our cities and the violence push for socialism/communism. With NYC removing 1 billion dollars from NYPD, it is just a matter of days or weeks before law enforcement is all but vanished. This movement is or will be replicated soon in many of our biggest cities including Chicago. I do not see this allowing enough resources to secure pro sporting events at an acceptable level where anyone would feel comfortable going to a sporting event. It is amazing to see society unravel before our eyes, I never thought I would live to see this

(07-01-2020 07:36 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Something appears to be happening right now that could have a bigger impact on pro sports ever being the same again even than Corona virus, that is the unrest and lawlessness in our cities and the violence push for socialism/communism. With NYC removing 1 billion dollars from NYPD, it is just a matter of days or weeks before law enforcement is all but vanished. This movement is or will be replicated soon in many of our biggest cities including Chicago. I do not see this allowing enough resources to secure pro sporting events at an acceptable level where anyone would feel comfortable going to a sporting event. It is amazing to see society unravel before our eyes, I never thought I would live to see this

If you want to feel safe at a sporting event they could just remove liquor sales. That’s about 99% of what’s behind fights.

(07-01-2020 08:00 PM)Rabid Squirrel Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 07:36 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Something appears to be happening right now that could have a bigger impact on pro sports ever being the same again even than Corona virus, that is the unrest and lawlessness in our cities and the violence push for socialism/communism. With NYC removing 1 billion dollars from NYPD, it is just a matter of days or weeks before law enforcement is all but vanished. This movement is or will be replicated soon in many of our biggest cities including Chicago. I do not see this allowing enough resources to secure pro sporting events at an acceptable level where anyone would feel comfortable going to a sporting event. It is amazing to see society unravel before our eyes, I never thought I would live to see this

If you want to feel safe at a sporting event they could just remove liquor sales. That’s about 99% of what’s behind fights.

It is just amazing to see the demise of our cities overnight. I can't imagine large events will be able to take place in them for a long long time. This will take a big chunk of revenue out of pro sports and TV contracts when major cities like Chicago, NY, etc will likely not be able to host events due to lawlessness

They are already playing professional sports in Europe and Asia.

(07-13-2020 08:45 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  They are already playing professional sports in Europe and Asia.

Are they having fans?

(07-13-2020 09:20 PM)1eyed_jack Wrote:  

(07-13-2020 08:45 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  They are already playing professional sports in Europe and Asia.

Are they having fans?

Not at this time. But as soon as the pandemic is under control they will.

I am not talking about COVID, I meant more in the realm of will people ever feel safe enough to go to a sporting event in a big city with the getting rid of police campaign. I have to be honest , even if baseball started with fans, I would not go into Chicago this year for a game and I went to around 10 games a year. It will take awhile for a normal person and family to take a risk to go into a city

(07-14-2020 02:03 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  I am not talking about COVID, I meant more in the realm of will people ever feel safe enough to go to a sporting event in a big city with the getting rid of police campaign. I have to be honest , even if baseball started with fans, I would not go into Chicago this year for a game and I went to around 10 games a year. It will take awhile for a normal person and family to take a risk to go into a city

What's wrong with stadium security?

How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

(07-14-2020 11:56 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

He’s a male Karen.

(07-15-2020 07:09 AM)Big_Man Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:56 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

He’s a male Karen.

Hey, concession stand line cutting is a serious issue

(07-14-2020 11:56 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

How many times have we have had city leaders trying to eliminate law enforcement

(07-15-2020 11:42 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:56 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

How many times have we have had city leaders trying to eliminate law enforcement

It's unrelated. Private security would still be a thing. Stadiums could hire their own security teams and be fine. For the most part that's what happens anyways.

I was walking down the road the other day in my town and there was a homeless person having some sort of mental breakdown and struggling, yelling to himself and pacing and whatnot. My town has services that handle that which aren't police officers carrying guns and handcuffs. That service was called and the situation was handled peacefully and everything was good. It's a situation I firmly believe would have been escalated by the presence of police officers.

My point being, cutting funding to the police doesn't mean anarchy, it means the money goes towards local resources to help the communities needs whatever they may be. It's shortsighted to think some police officers are the only thing keeping people from being murdered and raped and robbed.

And yes, I realize there has been looting and such and it is unfortunate but that was clearly a reaction to the George Floyd murder and non-response from the white house. The rioting has been pent up and is the exception not the rule. If police departments get defunded and we see a years worth of data showing it had a catastrophic effect I will gladly admit I was wrong. As is, there are plenty of more useful ways to reallocate funds within a community to actually help serve the members of that community better.

(07-15-2020 11:53 AM)1eyed_jack Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 11:42 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:56 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

How many times have we have had city leaders trying to eliminate law enforcement

It's unrelated. Private security would still be a thing. Stadiums could hire their own security teams and be fine. For the most part that's what happens anyways.

I was walking down the road the other day in my town and there was a homeless person having some sort of mental breakdown and struggling, yelling to himself and pacing and whatnot. My town has services that handle that which aren't police officers carrying guns and handcuffs. That service was called and the situation was handled peacefully and everything was good. It's a situation I firmly believe would have been escalated by the presence of police officers.

My point being, cutting funding to the police doesn't mean anarchy, it means the money goes towards local resources to help the communities needs whatever they may be. It's shortsighted to think some police officers are the only thing keeping people from being murdered and raped and robbed.

And yes, I realize there has been looting and such and it is unfortunate but that was clearly a reaction to the George Floyd murder and non-response from the white house. The rioting has been pent up and is the exception not the rule. If police departments get defunded and we see a years worth of data showing it had a catastrophic effect I will gladly admit I was wrong. As is, there are plenty of more useful ways to reallocate funds within a community to actually help serve the members of that community better.

Um, excuse me, but the rioting is "unfortunate"? I saw business owners on TV crying because they totally lost their businesses and livelihood. They are in financial ruin. That is somewhat more than "unfortunate". Those riots were criminal acts that must be punished to the maximum extent of the law. A reaction to the killing of George Floyd may be a reason, but it is no excuse.

Fewer police? What about all the crime, shootings, and killings that are daily occurrences? Are they also reactions to George Floyd? Or, maybe it was that those who were killed had lives that did not matter?

The answer is more police, but hold the police more accountable. The laws need to be more strictly enforced for those who violate the law and those sworn to uphold the law but who improperly enforce it. Cities need to better vet who they are hiring and hold each and every cop accountable for acts that break the rules and law. And hire police who know what it means to treat every human being like a human being. Want to see what happens when the number of police is reduced? Just look at New York.

Distributing the money to programs that help the people may be a good thing, but it will not get rid of the crime and all of a sudden make hardened criminals productive members of society. Through the years, money has been poured into programs that were established to help people. And many have. But at the same time, crime, shootings, and killings have increased. I, for one, do not want to live in a society devoid of police protection.

(07-15-2020 12:56 PM)Dog Fan Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 11:53 AM)1eyed_jack Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 11:42 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:56 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

How many times have we have had city leaders trying to eliminate law enforcement

It's unrelated. Private security would still be a thing. Stadiums could hire their own security teams and be fine. For the most part that's what happens anyways.

I was walking down the road the other day in my town and there was a homeless person having some sort of mental breakdown and struggling, yelling to himself and pacing and whatnot. My town has services that handle that which aren't police officers carrying guns and handcuffs. That service was called and the situation was handled peacefully and everything was good. It's a situation I firmly believe would have been escalated by the presence of police officers.

My point being, cutting funding to the police doesn't mean anarchy, it means the money goes towards local resources to help the communities needs whatever they may be. It's shortsighted to think some police officers are the only thing keeping people from being murdered and raped and robbed.

And yes, I realize there has been looting and such and it is unfortunate but that was clearly a reaction to the George Floyd murder and non-response from the white house. The rioting has been pent up and is the exception not the rule. If police departments get defunded and we see a years worth of data showing it had a catastrophic effect I will gladly admit I was wrong. As is, there are plenty of more useful ways to reallocate funds within a community to actually help serve the members of that community better.

Um, excuse me, but the rioting is "unfortunate"? I saw business owners on TV crying because they totally lost their businesses and livelihood. They are in financial ruin. That is somewhat more than "unfortunate". Those riots were criminal acts that must be punished to the maximum extent of the law. A reaction to the killing of George Floyd may be a reason, but it is no excuse.

Fewer police? What about all the crime, shootings, and killings that are daily occurrences? Are they also reactions to George Floyd? Or, maybe it was that those who were killed had lives that did not matter?

The answer is more police, but hold the police more accountable. The laws need to be more strictly enforced for those who violate the law and those sworn to uphold the law but who improperly enforce it. Cities need to better vet who they are hiring and hold each and every cop accountable for acts that break the rules and law. And hire police who know what it means to treat every human being like a human being. Want to see what happens when the number of police is reduced? Just look at New York.

Distributing the money to programs that help the people may be a good thing, but it will not get rid of the crime and all of a sudden make hardened criminals productive members of society. Through the years, money has been poured into programs that were established to help people. And many have. But at the same time, crime, shootings, and killings have increased. I, for one, do not want to live in a society devoid of police protection.

As should every time a cop murders someone. No offense intended, but you seems far more concerned with the businesses that were vandalized than the African American people that were murdered. Not to mention for every video of someone burning a store, there is a video of police attacking protesters for no reason. The whole situation was/is ******.

And cops show up AFTER crimes typically and usually don't do much. We could have a stricter gun law discussion, but I have a feeling I would know exactly how that discussion would go.

I just think investing in more services that are specifically aimed towards the communities needs, is a better option then putting more cops on the street. Agree to disagree I guess

(07-15-2020 12:56 PM)Dog Fan Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 11:53 AM)1eyed_jack Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 11:42 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:56 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  How many times have you gone to a sporting event and felt the need to call the cops?

How many times have we have had city leaders trying to eliminate law enforcement

It's unrelated. Private security would still be a thing. Stadiums could hire their own security teams and be fine. For the most part that's what happens anyways.

I was walking down the road the other day in my town and there was a homeless person having some sort of mental breakdown and struggling, yelling to himself and pacing and whatnot. My town has services that handle that which aren't police officers carrying guns and handcuffs. That service was called and the situation was handled peacefully and everything was good. It's a situation I firmly believe would have been escalated by the presence of police officers.

My point being, cutting funding to the police doesn't mean anarchy, it means the money goes towards local resources to help the communities needs whatever they may be. It's shortsighted to think some police officers are the only thing keeping people from being murdered and raped and robbed.

And yes, I realize there has been looting and such and it is unfortunate but that was clearly a reaction to the George Floyd murder and non-response from the white house. The rioting has been pent up and is the exception not the rule. If police departments get defunded and we see a years worth of data showing it had a catastrophic effect I will gladly admit I was wrong. As is, there are plenty of more useful ways to reallocate funds within a community to actually help serve the members of that community better.

Um, excuse me, but the rioting is "unfortunate"? I saw business owners on TV crying because they totally lost their businesses and livelihood. They are in financial ruin. That is somewhat more than "unfortunate". Those riots were criminal acts that must be punished to the maximum extent of the law. A reaction to the killing of George Floyd may be a reason, but it is no excuse.

Fewer police? What about all the crime, shootings, and killings that are daily occurrences? Are they also reactions to George Floyd? Or, maybe it was that those who were killed had lives that did not matter?

The answer is more police, but hold the police more accountable. The laws need to be more strictly enforced for those who violate the law and those sworn to uphold the law but who improperly enforce it. Cities need to better vet who they are hiring and hold each and every cop accountable for acts that break the rules and law. And hire police who know what it means to treat every human being like a human being. Want to see what happens when the number of police is reduced? Just look at New York.

Distributing the money to programs that help the people may be a good thing, but it will not get rid of the crime and all of a sudden make hardened criminals productive members of society. Through the years, money has been poured into programs that were established to help people. And many have. But at the same time, crime, shootings, and killings have increased. I, for one, do not want to live in a society devoid of police protection.

In general crimes have been decreasing over time, at least in the big cities.

And often, Republicans seem to want to get rid of social programs because we supposedly can't afford it. But we can afford spending $750 billion a year on the military, much of which will be obsolete before it's ever really needed. And they're always saying we need more money than that.

We're doing that now and we aren't even in any major wars. The next biggest military has 2 major aircraft carriers capable of fixed-wing operations. We have 11, with more on the way. If China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Iraq all put their navies together, they'd still be outgunned against us. Same with the air forces.

Helping people will lead to less desperation and probably less drug use too - and less crime - eventually. Won't happen overnight and you'll never get rid of all of it. I think we do need to lock up some of these people for longer - the violent criminals at least. Not sure why we don't. Might be that the court system is overwhelmed.

If NY decreased their police - they still have a lower murder rate than Chicago, which did not, AFAIK. I'm not sure about reducing police - but I think they need to be re-trained. They appear to be trained to be marines, rather than police.