I find it interesting that in the final reading, “quality of life” policing is mentioned in tandem with the “broken windows” theory because I have the same problem with both. The ideas make sense – as, admittedly, the “trickle down theory” in economics does. However, these ideas are all contingent on the idea that people are inherently good and non-corrupt. In this case, the major issue I can see with “quality of life” policing is that the police can then use it as an excuse to bully and discriminate. There are definite targets for this type of treatment, and it makes me uncomfortable to know that the policing occurs without a real crime being committed. It’s similar to the “broken windows” excuse surrounding Stop and Frisk, where the policemen say they’re trying to uncover smaller crimes like drug possession or concealed weapons. Is there ever a situation in which “quality of life” policing would help rather than hinder everyone involved?