Nobody said crime. They said damage to communities.

"Damage caused by police that are not crimes" is so vague as to need clarification, as I can't imagine what that could even be...

My point about stopping ALL crime with data is a very clear statement that has validity and merit.

Not understanding or having experience with something is not the same as it lacking validity and merit.

Without understanding the problems and ways police harm communities, throwing data at a problem is unlikely to result in good outcomes. Through the lens of “crime” harm is hard to separate from illegality. Driving with expired plates because you can’t afford it until next month is illegal, but it isn't causing the same amount of harm as burying that person under court fees and fines until they’re homeless. Unless you collect the right data, understand the data's meaning, data is useless.

Some starting places on harm police do to communities, if you’re interested:

- podcast: season 3 of Serial https://serialpodcast.org/season-three

- article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/over-policing-of-america_b_44...

- book: the end of policing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Policing

I am not sure why you are arguing against stopping crime. Maybe you misunderstood my posts.

I’m not against stopping crime, but most proposed solutions to crime usually boil down to “more cops”. Even data-driven ideas like you’re suggesting seem to end up as convoluted ways of saying “send more cops here instead of there”. Crimes of poverty can’t be solved with policing, and any attempt to reduce crime without first acknowledging that is very likely to do more harm than good.