Violent and crimedrop police.

It happens to observe, in all the newspapers, the police applying force in an increasingly exasperated way, and we immediately notice that the abuses linked to the excessive use of force grow over time, up to the enormous radicalization of movements such as Antifa or BLM. But why are the police in Western countries increasingly violent, knowing they are?

Why immediately after the conviction of the policeman who killed Floyd, who was supposed to bring faith in justice and calm the situation, the police killed two other black people for no reason? (don't tell me it was necessary to shoot the girl), there is the video.

The answer may come from a phenomenon called "crimedrop". It is a phenomenon that no one can yet explain well, for which the crime rate is falling across the West.

This phenomenon is called "crimedrop", and the explanation is not yet clear. Personally, (I repeat, personally) I believe that this decline is mainly due to the increasingly widespread use of surveillance cameras first, and cameras everywhere after.

However, the point is this: crime has collapsed in the last 10 years. Italy has returned to the numbers of 1955, when the population was much lower.

The police are afraid of cuts.

How long can a drop in crime go on before the police get a scissor kick to the budget? How long will the interior ministry still be able to ask for 22 billion euros / year if crime continues to decline?

The answer is simple:

• as long as the newspapers continue to give the impression of increasing violence.
• as long as there are clashes with the police to show.
• as long as there are images of violence in the newspapers.

Now, if you want to justify an abnormal number of policemen, it is not enough to mention the single crime. It is necessary to thrust people into an imaginary world where the presence of entire legions of policemen is necessary against rampant violence.

It's hard to convince the population that tens of thousands of extra cops are needed for a summer crime. And since they are not very effective against femicide, it is also difficult to convince the population that they serve against single crimes.

But if we show the population a street fight with thousands of violent people, it will be easy to convince the population not to cut the police.

The problem is that the street clashes must first of all be obtained, and then made much more violent than they would be. It is therefore necessary to radicalize those who take to the streets.

Radicalizing those who take to the streets, if they do not understand the trick, is simple: a disproportionate use of force by the police is enough.

In practice, the police do nothing but abuse their strength at the first demonstrations. At that point the moderates stop demonstrating and the extremists gain strength. The next demonstration is even more violent and is repressed with even more force. The extremists in turn become more extreme. And so on.

This thing that is happening, the crimedrop, is a complex phenomenon and it makes no sense to analyze it on one dimension, also because there are many hypotheses about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop

But the crimedrop problem is putting the police in a worrying situation: on the one hand they are asking for more money and more men, or at least to keep the current budget, while in practice the statistics clearly say that there is no more need. of so much police.

For this reason, the acts of violence that arrive immediately after the Floyd trial should not be so surprising: the police NEED a non-pacified, tense America that asks for more police everywhere. If Biden's peacemaking strategy works, police cuts are almost inevitable.

The police need to prove that they are fighting a very tough battle against crime, and to hide from the population the fact that crime is on the decline.

You don't need a lot of police anymore.

In Italy we could easily cut by 50%, and optimize a minimum (at the end of the day, only one regiment of speedboats could be moved here and there on request: there are no longer many such violent demonstrations), and nothing would change. .

And that's why the police have become (and will become) more and more violent: to create enemies. They don't have to work, in short.

The Piacenza case is emblematic: the policemen favored drug dealers mainly for the purpose of "getting them arrests": what they needed to do is to demonstrate that that barracks worked and was of some use.

Otherwise, why not close it?

The same problem applies to soft drugs: soft drugs make up nearly 75% of the arrests made by law enforcement. If they were liberalized, there would be a lot of barracks that would remain without stops and without arrests, and therefore would be cut down.

A phenomenon that has also happened in several American states where the police, instead of being calmer because they are more discharged, became furious: no longer having the thousands of arrests / year for soft drugs, many barracks. they appear today for what they are: practically useless.

Compare the two maps:

As you can see, the correlation is very clear. Where they decriminalized or legalized cannabis for recreational use (that is, you can no longer make arrests for cannabis), in the green gray and blue image, the police have become very violent.

Why? Why they have to create riots: since they no longer have most of the work, they have to cause trouble in order to justify their salary.

In practice, if crime continues to decline, and by chance we decriminalize cannabis in Europe as well, the police would become even more violent, hoping to cause the riots that serve to demonstrate that more police are needed.