[the_absurdist]

Challenge:

Let's see if anyone with a username linked to their true identity can figure out a way to speak honestly about this without tanking their career.

[tupshin]

Challenge accepted. This article is an emotional rant (true or false) is not well grounded in facts and causality. There fundamental claim is that

> The simple fact is that this State and County have set themselves on a course to disaster. And the worst part is that the agency for whom I work has backed literally every policy change that had the predictable, and predicted, outcome of more crime and more people getting hurt.

So the claim is that his state, county, and agency are all backing policies that predictably lead to more crime.

Those policies are then characterized as:

* bond/bail reform * reduced parole and sentences in some cases * "malicious" prosecution of law officers * not prosecuting some crimes that are on the books

Unfortunately the author makes zero references, citations, or arguments for why these policies are harmful, as enacted, and why they might have led to the negative experiences of their family.

So it's an emotional content (nearly) free emotional rant that doesn't move the discussion forward in any helpful way.

Analysis that showed even correlation would be interesting/useful. This is not.

[P_I_Staker]

But he hears gun shots sometimes and saw a drug dealer. That surely proves everything has gotten out of hand. Time to lock people up before they're proven guilty of committing any crimes, put non-violent criminals in cages, and permanently ruin peoples lives, preventing them from gainful employment!

[saagarjha]

Can’t say what the effects will be on my career but I doubt there will be any.

There’s not much content here. The author is a prosecutor who is upset that policies have been introduced that put fewer people behind bars. They think that we need “tough on crime” laws that keep their kids safe. I am not surprised in the least.

[P_I_Staker]

They always say this and whine when they don't get their way.

[jeswin]

Most people I know would bracket you as right-leaning if you attack a left-wing position without balancing it by simultaneously attacking a right-wing position. It is usually acceptable to attack right-wing issues without a balancing act.

I find it quite troubling, but that's where we are. I don't care about my reputation.

[OkayPhysicist]

That's just basic probabilistic reasoning. If, say, 90% of people attacking position X belong to group A, and 10% belong to group B, it's safe to guess based merely on the observable "So-and-So is attacking X" that So-and-So is probably a member of group A (P(A|X)=90%). If 90% of people attacking position Y are members of group B, and 10% are members of group A, then observing someone attack both changes the probability to even odds (P(A|X,Y)=50%).

So, yeah, if I see someone attacking a view popular among the left, my first assumption is going to be that the person in question leans right.

[plagiarist]

What is the agreement or disagreement you are having with that content which would get you fired?