John Pfaff

@johnpfaff

Professor at Fordham Law. Prisons and criminal justice quant. I'm not contrarian, the data are. Author of Locked In. New stuff at johnfpfaff.com.

739 Siguiendo45.118 Seguidores16.932 Publicaciones

YouTube Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y johnpfaff.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 25d

And while this guy was ex-military police, so likely came through the fast-track program that avoids basic training, it's worth noting that ICE also cut that training to ~250 hrs, only pushing it back to ~580 this month. The US average is ~650-800. In Europe? Training can be 2,000 to 5,000 hrs.

Graph showing US hrs of training at ~650, vs Canada at over 1000, England at over 2000, Australia at over 3500, Germany at 5000, and Finland at 5,500.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 25d

ICE can't keep up with vetting amidst their attempted hiring surge. They even yanked over 100 people out of FEMA to help out with the vetting backlog, which a House Dem report said likely violated Federal law. These are the costs of those failures (tho likely not seen as costs by Miller).

WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is struggling to keep pace with vetting new hires during its historic recruitment push and is laying out a process to deal with allegations of past misconduct among recruits, the agency said in an internal email on Monday, underscoring concerns
about ICEs rapid expansion. The email, sent to supervisors with ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations division and seen by Reuters, said the "high volume of new hires" and stalled background checks could create uncertainty for field offices when allegations arise related to actions before joining ICE, and that allegations should be referred to the
internal Integrity Investigations Unit. "If a Field Office receives derogatory information about a newly hired employees conduct prior to ERO employment (e.g., termination or resignation in lieu of terminationfrom another law enforcement agency for
misconduct), please refer the matter to IIU," it said.

The report also confirms that 125 FEMA employees from the agency's human capital and security offices, respectively, were detailed starting late last summer to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to support ICE's ambitious hiring
goals. Some of those employees began returning to FEMA in January, while others
were detailed until May 2026, according to the report.
The lawmakers behind the report argue the deployments threaten public trust in FEMA and further weaken an agency already flagging from thousands of
workforce cuts. "After the Trump administration hollowed out a third of FEMA's workforce, it put disaster professionals to work as the 'operational backbone' of its cruel mass deportation agenda, likely in violation of federal law," House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Ranking Member Greg Stanton (D-AZ) said. "FEMA exists for one reason: to be there for Americans on the worst day of their lives. We're in the middle of a dangerous and
destructive hurricane and wildfire season. The stakes couldn't be higher." He added that all FEMA employees detailed to ICE or Custom and Border
Protection should be recalled "immediately."

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 26d

A 100% clearance rate should raise a LOT of red flags. It’s like a dictator winning an “election” with 99.8% of the vote. No one does that well. Maybe with homicides that low the police can clear them all. Or maybe they’re just reporting the ones they clear. I lean towards B.

El Salvador recorded its lowest homicide tally since tracking began, with government officials announcing 82 murders in 2025, a sharp drop from the previous year. Justice and Public Security Minister Gustavo Villatoro shared the figures during a press conference on Monday, pointing to the ongoing campaign against gangs as the main
factor. The homicide rate stood at 1.3 per 100,000
people, down fron
1.9 in 2024 when 114 killings occurred. Officials noted that all 82 cases from last year reached resolution,
achieving full clearance.
'This positions EI Salvador as the safest nation in the Western Hemisphere," Villatoro stated, emphasizing the progress made under President Nayib

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 26d

One constant problem we seem to have these days is that no one can keep straight the direction that time flows. Also, one other HUGE sus detail:

The decline stems from a state of emergency declared in March 2022, which permits
detentions without warrants.
This measure has led to nearly 91,000 arrests of suspected gang members, though around 8,000 later gained release after reviews showed no involvement. Gangs once dominated 80% of the country, relying on extortion from businesses and transport operators, with
refusal often resulting in death.

Graph showing that murders peaked in 2015 and declined steadily to today, tho the rate of decline did jump in 2022.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 26d

Put aside that this is ... definitely not the correct change. In this case, the change suggested is to something that IS NOT ACTUALLY A WORD. Like, come on, the name of the app is literally "WORD." What is MS doing here?!

"These results are fairly consistent with other national-level data that report the percentage of people admitted to prison each year for drug offenses"

MS is suggesting "prisoning" for "to prison"

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 26d

The next time a law review wants a cite for something I don't have the energy or desire to look up, I'm just going to drop a footnote to Beazell, which has perhaps the greatest "clerks are tired of this Bluebook crap" line I've ever seen.*

expressly prohibits such laws under:

Article I, § 9 – Prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws.
Article I, § 10 – Prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws.
What Constitutes Punishment

In Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto prohibitions, holding: “It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.”

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 27d

Heh. An amusingly apt Random Timeline Event.

One post saying “this can’t be real,” and an unrelated one saying “it’s real” right below it.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 28d

Fifth paragraph. A little lower than I would have liked (was right after the first ad), but higher than it would have been in the past. The narrative still feels like it is shifting. Slower than I’d like, maybe, but shifting nonetheless. ICE is losing the presumption of honesty. As it should.

As of Monday evening, no video evidence confirming the government's version of events had emerged. Since last year, federal agents have fired on more than 20 people, many of whom were shot in their vehicles. In some cases, video evidence has undermined the accounts that were initially provided by
federal officials.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· 28d

These shootings and killings have been problematic for yrs. A 2013 report by the Police Exec Research Forum found CBP agents likely intentionally positioned themselves in front of cars to justify shooting ppl. This seems plausible in the video of Good’s killing as well. www.cbp.gov/sites/defaul...

21
ag at Vehicles
Fifteen cases were reviewed where shots were fired at or into vehicles by CBP agents.
Observations: Based on a review of the submitted cases, it appears that CBP practice allows shooting at the driver of any suspect vehicle that comes in the direction of agents. It is suspected that in m
ny vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force. In most of these cases, the agents have stated that they were shooting at the driver of a velicle that was coming at them and posing an imminent threat to their life. In some cases, passengers were struck by agents' gunfire. Little focus has been placed on defensive tactics that could have been used by shooting agents such as getting out of the way. It should be recognized that a ½ ounce (200 grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000 pound moving vehicle, and if the driver of the approaching vehicle is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat. Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle
can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.
The cases suggest that some of the shots at suspect vehicles are taken out of frustration

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 12

Impending departure for a multi-week sleepaway camp means it’s time for the annual color coded packing Excel. This year‘s big q: Which will come first: the ADHD kid comes home with at least 50% of their clothes, or the Bills win a Super Bowl?

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 10

Buddy:

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 10

And here's PBS, whose first paragraph on the claim is traditional just-quoting-what-the-cops-tell-them ... but with a title above it, in much bigger font, warning that the claim has no support. This is a real shift in coverage from how shootings are usually handled.

Federal officials say their vehicle was rammed but don't provide evidence

Salgado Araujo was shot after he ignored commands and attempted to ram an officer who fired his weapon in self-defense, The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday in a statement. ICE officers were targeting him because he was living in the country without legal permission, according to the department, which oversees ICE. The man's car struck an ICE vehicle, the department added.

READ MORE: Trump's deportation agenda is about to get a $70B infusion from Congress

Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvia Garcia said Salgado Araujo had no criminal convictions. He died at the hospital. Houston firefighters said he was shot in the abdomen.

Three other men appeared to be detained as Salgado Araujo lay moaning on the ground, according to his son, who said one of them was his uncle and that no one has heard from them since.

Federal officials have not released video or images of the shooting or the damage to the vehicles. Salgado on Tuesday joined civil rights groups and Democratic officials in urging federal authorities to release all the footage and other information it has on the shooting.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 10

Here is Sean Teane, the relatively newly-elected DA of Houston, who won the Dem primary running as reform-minded (but not "a radical") prosecutor announcing that he is already starting an investigation into the Araujo shooting. Taking police violence seriously is a consistent pattern w reformers.

Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare said Thursday on Hello Houston that his office has initiated its own investigation, while acknowledging its access to evidence has been limited. The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General is investigating the shooting death, according to the FBI, which has said it's investigating a potential assault on a law enforcement
officer.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 10

The preposterousness and easy falsification of ICE claims is so striking. But think it is also backfiring. Here are the 4th para of an NYT piece on the shooting, and paras 6-8 of an NYT piece taking a skeptical look at "weaponized vehicle" claims in general. Bluntly untrusting, from the jump.

Homeland security officials said Mr. Araujo had tried to use his vehicle as a weapon, though no video or other evidence for that
claim has emerged.

This is the same language that federal officials have used repeatedly to describe other shootings by immigration agents. In many instances, those initial descriptions - including claims that
officers had been assaulted or injured - later unraveled in court. No evidence was immediately provided to support the federal officials' account of the shooting of Mr. Araujo. He suffered a gunshot wound to his abdomen, was taken to a hospital and died, said Rustin Rawlings, a spokesman for the Houston Fire
Department. The authorities did not say why Mr. Araujo was being sought, and
did not provide video camera footage of the encounter.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 8

Today I learned that Tennessee has targeted reform DAs' refusal to prosecute certain crimes by giving the state Supreme Court the right to install a temporary DA in such districts just to prosecute those cases.

Chapter 7 - DISTRICT ATTORNEYS GENERAL (§§ 8-7-101 — 8-7-606)
Part 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 8-7-101 — 8-7-115)
Section 8-7-106 - District attorney general pro tem - Attorney acting for district attorney general

Universal Citation:
TN Code § 8-7-106 (2024)
Learn more
This media-neutral citation is based on the American Association of Law Libraries Universal Citation Guide and is not necessarily the official citation.
Previous
Next
(a)
(1) If the district attorney general fails to attend the circuit or criminal court, or is disqualified from acting, or if there is a vacancy in the office, the court shall appoint some other attorney to supply such district attorney general's place temporarily. The acts of such district attorney general pro tem shall be as valid as if done by the regular officer, and the district attorney general pro tem shall be entitled to the same privileges and emoluments.
(2) If a district attorney general peremptorily and categorically refuses to prosecute all instances of a criminal offense without regard to facts or circumstances, then the attorney general and reporter may petition the supreme court for appointment of a district attorney general pro tem. If the supreme court finds that the district attorney general has refused to attend and prosecute according to law, then the supreme court shall appoint some other attorney as district attorney general pro tem in the district attorney general's place for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons accused of committing that offense. The acts of such district attorney general pro tem are valid as if done by the regular officer, and the district attorney general pro tem is entitled to the same privileges and emoluments.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 7

OMG. How do you get a job commenting on the law on CNN and then claim Kav’s take on the constitutional part of the birthright opinion is UNCLEAR? He could not be any more explicit!!

What did you make of the birthright-citizenship decision? That seemed like the type of case that recently might have been 9-0 or 8-1 on the constitutional question, and instead it was 5-4. How does legal conventional wisdom, in this case among a lot of conservatives,
shift like that? I had the same view of the birthright case, especially after listening to the oral argument. I thought it would be at least 7-2, maybe 8-1. I even thought there was an outside shot it would be unanimous, and then it ended up being 6-3, although there's even some dispute about the basis for Kavanaugh's ruling, and you can argue it was really 5-4, although he's not in a dissent anywhere. But your question is, like, if there's a shift on the Court, how does that happen? Like, what's that process? What does that look like? Justices, like any other public figures or political beings, sometimes see their ideologies and policy
preferences evolve over time.

STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. BARBARA, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[June 30, 2026] JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the judgment and
dissenting in part. Executive Order No. 14160 establishes new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens
unlawfully or temporarily in the country. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449
(2025). The Court today holds that the Ord
violates the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
I respectfully disagree with the Court's constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 LS. C. §1401(a). Congress could-consistent
with the Fourteenth Amendment-amend §1401(a) or unlawfully or temporarily

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 7

I mean, this definition of politics is crazy. It’s defined entirely by Trump. The idea that Roberts may have non-Trump conservative goals is “interesting“ (it’s … not, tho, right? It’s true but obvious). And any non-perfect Trump vote is “apolitical,” which … no?!

I'm definitely not arguing that the liberals are not political, too. Isn't it possible that someone like Justice Roberts is making political decisions, but he's just not the extreme conservative that Donald Trump or Clarence Thomas is! So he could be making his decisions based on his ideology, and, as one lawyer said to me when I was talking to him before this interview, his politics are those of the Reagan Justice Department in the nineteen-eighties, which was conservative and political but not exactly MAGA. And so he's making decisions based on that ideology, and that means he votes with Clarence Thomas most of the time, but not always. But that can still
be political, right? Well, that's interesting. I'm just trying to think about which example
would work best here.

There is also the additional political issue of when you look at his decision helping to save Obamacare, or his compromise on the Dobbs abortion case, he seems like someone who's wheeling and dealing, yes, but also, I think, in a more cynical way, doing things that are almost always helpful to Republicans. Getting rid of Obamacare would have been bad for Republicans. The Dobbs decision was bad for Republicans. Allowing Trump to declare insane levels of tariffs would have been really bad for the economy and bad for Republicans. I think Trump getting control of the Fed would have been bad for Republicans.
That's an interesting view, and I think the dividing line between what you and I are arguing is that there's a distinction, but an important one, between being political and being policy- or outcome-focussed, right?
So, the way you're defining political is what's gonna be best for this party. What's gonna harm them least. I wasn't looking at it through that lens. I'm looking at it through who is voting reflexively, automatically, and essentially one hundred per cent of the time for whatever real-world policy outcomes suit their preferences. And if you use that lens, I think the other four can actually point to cases and say, Well, look, here, here, here, and here, we came out in a way that yielded a result that was against the Administration. But I think you're sort of looking at it at a next level and saying, yes, but when they've done that, that's been to help or save or rescue or protect the Republican Party, which may be fair, and may be valid.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 7

So Alito and Thomas are “political” bc they always vote for Trump, and the liberal three are “political” bc they always oppose him. So the other four are less “political” moderates bc they aren’t ALWAYS pro-Trump. That’s a WILD—and wildly unhelpful—definition of “political.”

not saying that the other four are perfect paragons of judicial impartiality, and that ideology never factors in. I am saying that, on a substantial number of very high-stakes cases, we saw two or more of those four Justices reaching results that go against their conservative ideology, that yield nonconservative, anti-Trump, pro-liberal outcomes. I don’t think there’s any way to ignore that. If all nine Justices just did what I accused the five political Justices of doing, the world would look very different right now. Like, this isn’t just an academic argument. We would have more tariffs in place, and have a substantially narrowed version of birthright citizenship. We’d have no allowance for mail-in ballots coming in after the date of the election. We’d have National Guard on the streets in Chicago and perhaps elsewhere. We’d have very limited access to mifepristone. So, it really does make a difference.
In your piece, you say those four are the only ones who’ve shown “any ability to dispassionately assess the law.” And you used some of the cases that you just mentioned to me as examples. It seemed to me, when you described the Fed case, that the Justices in the majority were not dispassionately assessing the law. I thought that you were saying they were making a political decision, maybe a smart political decision, maybe a reasonable political decision, but a political decision.
My argument is not that Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts never take politics into account. Kavanaugh does explicitly take policy into account in that Lisa Cook decision, which I think is an outlier. I’m not saying Justice Kavanaugh is a perfect paragon of judicial neutrality. All nine Justices let policy considerations animate and drive them to differing degrees, and I think what was unusual about that is that Kavanaugh said it out loud. There are other cases, though, where Justice Kavanaugh clearly comes out in ways that are not conservative, right? And look, the liberal Justices, too,

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 7

Tell me you don’t know what SCOTUS is by telling me you don’t know what SCOTUS is. Outside of 9-0 corrections, SCOTUS C*A*N*N*O*T “apply the equation” bc the ENTIRE REASON the case is there is we DON’T KNOW WHAT THE EQUATION IS. SCOTUS doesn’t call balls and strIkes. It DEFINES THE STRIKE ZONE.

just saying, when you say you're messing with markets, that stuff matters to politics. But anyway, you wrote this piece downplaying the idea that the four least conservative of the six conservative Justices were acting politically the way the other five Justices were, and you seemed dismissive of people who describe the Court as political. So how would you describe something like the Fed
decision? My argument is that the Court is neither entirely political nor that it is entirely apolitical. I think we have to be a little more nuanced in the way we go about this. First, how do we define political? I think, generally speaking, that criticism means this is a 6-3 conservative supermajority, and when push comes to shove on all the big things, they're just gonna go 6-3 for Trump. I think what we all basically mean when we say a Justice is being political is that they're starting from the bottom line. They're starting from the political or policy or real-world outcome, and then reverse-engineering the legal analysis, the math calculation, to give them the desired result. And I think what we mean when we say that Justices are being nonpolitical is they're just doing some faithful version of the math equation, and living with the result,
whether it aligns with their ideology or not.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 7

The answer to the first question is such a disaster that I don’t even know if I need to read more. Why do we need commentary on SCOTUS from someone who thinks the birthright issue is over?? It’s just starting! Hell, the GOP is following Kav’s do-it-legislatively guidance THIS WEEK.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 6

The whole thing is statutory Calvinball. They're explicit that it is all discretionary with no meaningful guidance. Of course, now I'm wondering what FIFA Common Law looks like--though maybe it's all too Continental for that.

25. DETERMINING THE DISCIPLINARY MEASURE 1. The judicial body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measures to be imposed in accordance with the objective and subjective elements of the offence,
taking into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 2. Disciplinary measures may be limited to a geographical area or to one or more
specific categories of match or competition. 3. When determining the disciplinary measure, the judicial body shall take into account all relevant factors of the case, including any assistance of and substantial cooperation by the offender in uncovering or establishing a breach of any FIFA rule, the circumstances and the degree of the offender's guilt and any other
relevant circumstances. 4. In exercising its discretionary powers, the relevant FIFA judicial body may scale
down the disciplinary measure to be imposed or even dispense with it entirely.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jul 2

I don't get why people keep dunking on the Great American State fair. You Philistines all fail to appreciate that Trump, the cultural savant that he is, has designed one of the most moving tributes to one of America's greatest painters. TDS is real, y'all.

Hopper painting of a lone man staring out the window of an empty office.

Hopper painting of an older woman in red staring out a window all by herself in a room.

Hopper painting of another woman staring out into the void standing by herself in an empty room.

Hopper painting of a woman staring out the window all alone.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 30

"a WiDE rANge oF OriGiNAliST sCHolArS..." A range from Wurman to Lash to Epstein to Hamburger to Barnett to a Heritage fellow. From far right to far far right to far far FAR right. Anyway, when scientists make up their evidence, there is usually professional repercussions. What will we do?

The President's initiative generated a groundswell of new scholarship into the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause. A wide range of originalist scholars have concluded that the 20th century executive practice was mistaken and
that the Order has substantial lawful applications.
See
generally, e.g., Lash, 101 Notre Dame L. Rev. 101; R. Ep-
stein,
The Myth of Birthright Citizenship (2026); I.
Wurman, Jurisdiction and Citizenship, 49 Harv. J. L. Pub.
Pol'y 315 (2026); Swearer, 2 Tex. A & M J. L. & Civ. Gov. 73; R. Barnett, Trump Is Right on Birthright Citizenship, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 31, 2026; P. Hamburger, Alle- giance, Birthright, and Citizenship, Law and Liberty (Apr.
9, 2026), https://lawliberty.org/allegiance-birthright-and-
citzenship (archived at perma.cc/S9JB-ZNEP).

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 30

Actually, 5-4 on what the Constitution means. Utter lawlessness.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the judgment and
dissenting in part. Executive Order No. 14160 establishes new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens
unlawfully or temporarily in the country. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (2025). The Court today holds that the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I respectfully disagree with the Court's constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.
But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U.S. C. §1401(a). Congress could-consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment-amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has
not yet done so.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 25

Also, almost all our decarceration has been in big cities. Rural places have all seen the number of people they lock up rise. And these are raw counts, not rates--bet rates look worse, as rural areas increasingly depopulate. In general, crim legal outcomes in rural US worsen, in urban improve.

Change in Prison Populations by County Urbanization and Ideology
26 States United States, 2009-2019
Dem Counties
Rep Counties
Urbanization
Pris Pop 2009
Pris Pop 2019
Pris Pop 2009 Pris Pop 2019
Dem Change
GOP Change
1. Metro, 1M+
411788
337681
162787
157535
-91428
-10967
2. Metro, 250K-1M
88752
77300
136757
137899
-13525
-6490
3. Metro, < 250K
16324
15488
79420
86943
-1641
189
4. Non-Metro, Adj, 20K+
6525
6631
40019
44438
-736
2053
5. Non-Metro, NonAdj, 20K+
1841
2305
11485
15412
-71
991
6. Non-Metro, Adj, 2.5K-20K
4283
3754
50124
55697
-701
2999
7. Non-Metro, NonAdj, 2.5K-20K
1417
1694
20722
23399
-24
751
8. Rural, Adj
691
609
4817
5499
-133
464
9. Rural, NonAdj
290
275
4982
6131
-33
347
Cumulative Change
Dem Counties' Share Large Metro Dem Counties' Share of Decline
Large Metro Dem Counties' Share of 2009 Total
-108292
91.8%
77.5%
39.5%
-9663 Dem Counties' Share of Pris Pop
and State Pop
2009
2019 Pris Pop
51.0%
45.5%
State Pop
49.7%
49.0%
Included states saw a net 6% decline, vs. 10% nationwide. Their share of national prison pops is 74% in 2009 and 78% in 2019 Key missing states for declines are MI, CT, NJ, MD, VA, and DE (missing states with declines > 1000)
Key missing states for increases are AR, ID, AZ, KS, NE, and MT (missing states with increases > 1000)

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 25

Rural areas increasingly dominate the grim homicide rate "leaderboard." Now, that's a tad unfair--they surely dominate safest places too, bc places w small pops have much more volatility (1 extra homicide can swing a rural rate, not NYC's). But still: urban/rural homicides rates are converging.

Half of U.S. counties with highest rates of gun homicides are
rural
Top 50 U.S. counties with the highest annualized firearm homicide rates, 2021-2024
Use pagination to browse, click column headings to sort, or search within the table.
Search in table
Page 1 of 4
>
Annualized Gun Homicide
County
Urbanization
Rate
1
St. Louis city, MO
large metro
77.94
2
Washington County, MS
rural
68.60
3
Holmes County, MS
rural
67.48
4
Hinds County, MS
small metro
67.22
5
Leflore County, MS
rural
66.90
6
Orleans Parish, LA
large metro
55.69
7
Coahoma County, MS
rural
53.47
8
Dallas County, AL
rural
49.23
9
Petersburg city, VA
large metro
47.71
10
Baltimore city, MD
large metro
46.81
11
Allendale County, SC
rural
46.35
12
Tunica County, MS
large metro
43.68
13
Wilkinson County, MS
rural
41.56

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 25

A point that this piece only makes in passing, but is worth flagging, is that even for police violence, we are seeing rural areas deteriorate as urban areas improve, despite a media that still insists on glamorizing small-town life and viewing our cities as on fire. This is a pattern:

Killings by police have yet to reignite the broad outrage that followed Mr Floyd's death, but each day, unfortunately, brings the chance of a grisly event that might. Shootings by sheriffs, who operate mostly in rural areas, have risen especially fast in recent years, countering improvements in some big cities. In a recent case in a small town in Mississippi, police officers killed a one-year-old by shooting at the car in which the child was riding. Cops said that the driver, an alleged shoplifter stealing nappies, was trying to run them over. Local witnesses have disputed that account. The officers say
they were standing in front of the car. Witnesses say they were chasing it.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 24

I mean, I COULD just put the dishes in the sink away. But it’s easier to just hide them in a dense fog of melted dry ice. Either way, they’re out of sight, right?

Sink completely fogged in w dry ice fog.

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 24

Not to oversimplify, but it seems like one key takeaway here isn't that the problem is Fox News, but the internet in general. The internet has created a diffuse system of mis- and dis-information that interacts toxically with our already-deep seeded distrust of expertise.

But this shouldn't be conflated with, for example, a relentless dedication to watching Fox News. Instead, the researchers found that it emanated from that core "freedom" tenet: "Having the courage to think independently, rather than defer to experts, is itself experienced as an expression of freedom," the researchers write. The researchers found that the people with whom they spoke relied heavily on bespoke sources of information and ad hoc solutions for health problems. Diaries detailing their media diets include a range of YouTube channels, influencers and Facebook groups, few of which could be called media outlets in any real sense. They "do their own research," though that often means outsourcing their research to trusted, non-institutional voices, people who
engage in what the researchers call "the performance of inquiry." "[T]he mechanisms mainstream institutions use to establish credibility — mechanisms like expert input, peer review, debunking and fact-checking," they write, "have no
purchase in this new framework."

John Pfaff@johnpfaff· Jun 24

I feel less bad not getting it, bc I think the first 5 responses posited between 4-5 different, tho def related, explanations….