Displaying 41 - 50 of 1828 Forum PostsPrev 3 4 5 6 7 Next
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    jared the ..."very important second part of the sentence"... pretty much says that the police officer can stop and frisk for just about anything that he/she suspects, or believes, or can even make up.

    The important part of the sentence is that part that says ..."Fourth Amendment...is not violated"...

    Here's some stats from the NYPD themselves.

    Police Department City of New York
    NYPD Compstat unit

    Year 1990 2013 % Increase/decrease
    Murder 2,262 -- 335 -85%
    Rape 3,126 -- 1,378 -56%
    Robbery 100,280 -- 19,128 -81%
    Felony Assault 44,122 -- 20,297 -54%
    Burglery 122,055 -- 17,429 -86%

    When Giuliani and Bratten inherited came into office, it was one of the unsafest big cities.

    At the end of 2013 when Bloomberg stepped down, it was one of the safest big cities. We shall see what happens with De Blasio as mayor, we know he has hired Bratten(!) so maybe he recognizes success when he sees it. Not that he's going to allow stop and frisk, at least not now. Like johnny mentioned in an earlier post, I have also heard that New Yorks crime is rising since the first of this year. Too early to get any permanent, long term trends like the permanent, long term trends listed above.

    Stop & frisk is the main factor in the success listed above.

    If you want to talk to me in all caps, go right ahead, it's just words on a screen. We are just having a discussion, that's all. It probably won't hurt my feelings a bit, and if it does, I'll get over it.

    Nice try, yourself.
  • Jul 08, 2014 02:02 PM
    Last: 8mo
    3.8k
    Indeed. Last week we were told that they were going to request 2 billion. This week it is nearly 4 billion.

    Next week????? Who knows?

    Another 2 billion? Or 5 billion?

    Solving problems ..."with money alone"... is EXACTLY how our government works. Or doesn't work, would be more accurate.

    Just look at public schools as just one example...all they want is more money every year and what are the results?

    A few billion here and a few billion there...the more money involved means more corruption, waste, fraud there will be.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    From Wikipedia: Terry v Ohio 1968

    "Terry v Ohio was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest..."
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    jared it's not the first time we've disagreed, and that's OK, it would be boring to think exactly alike all the time. A little dissent is never a bad thing, it spurs critical thinking which leads to more understanding.

    I certainly did not talk up Bloomberg ..."then I surely don't know what is"... you said it, not me. I "talked up" Bloombergs program, not him.

    You insist that stop and frisk is unconstituitional, and I say that saving hundreds or thousands of lives over the years is worth the price of pushing that boundry.

    So you do not like the source of the article from NYT.com that I cited? You reject the story simply because you don't like the source? Like I always say, if you don't like the results of a poll or a news story, attack the source. It happens all the time and both sides do it.

    Not surprising at all.

    There are plenty of sources that tell how great and how effective "stop and frisk" was in New York, just like there are plenty of sources saying how terrible and unlawful it was. As with most large, controversial programs, the supporters and the detractors can both find plenty of sources to tell them what they want to believe.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    jared you got a couple of things wrong right off the bat: as for Bloomberg, I am not, not have I ever been ..."talking him up"... I don't care for the guy, never have, and I certainly did not say so. What I DO SAY about Bloomberg is that under Guiliani and Bloomberg crime went way, way down. He did lots of things I did not like, (the soda ban was as stupid as it gets) but he and his police commissioner kept New York one of the safest big cities in the world and stop and frisk was probably the single biggest factor.

    And I do not disagree that stop and frisk may be unconstituitional. It's debatable. What is NOT debatable is whether or not it works. It does work.

    The facts do not lie. Crime and murder went way down. Now that De Blassio is in, we will see what happens, it's too soon to tell.

    Here's what an article in NYT.com updated 7-22-13 said about stop and frisk: TO SEE IT'S VALUE, SEE HOW CRIME ROSE ELSEWHERE

    "New Yorks 80% drop in crime since the early 1990's is twice as deep and has lasted twice as long as the national average.
    Crime rate in Boston is 4107 per 100,000 residents.
    Crime rate in New York is 2257 per 100,000 residents."
    That's almost double in Boston...wonder why? (I know why)

    Crime rate was reduced by 80% in minority neighborhoods from the early 1990's thru 2013.

    The police stopped people where the crimes were being committed. That meant that the black and minority neighborhoods were targeted. Only because that's where the crimes were being reported.

    You may want to read up on it.
  • Jun 17, 2014 03:38 PM
    Last: 8yr
    3.7k
    5-0 Germany only 30 minutes in.

    This is a worse blowout than the Super Bowl!

    Let me know what the final is...I can't watch anymore.

    Does Brazil burn their city (or their country) like Detroit does after a bad loss?
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    Clay you think ..."in order to keep your firearm you must go to 5 classes a month to train in firearms safety"...

    Yeah...we both know that's a pipe dream. Very few legal and lawful gun owners will do that and zero point zero of the gang bangers will do it.

    I'll be nice and not tell you what the gun owners that I know (deer and duck hunters mostly) would say to that idea. That amount of profanity would probably get me banned.

    5 a month??? They wouldn't go to one a year.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    jared I kinda thought you'd jump all over the "stop and frisk" mention. The truth is, it's the only thing that works. Just ask New York.

    I know, I know, it is far too politically correct to keep letting the young black and hispanic males to keep killing themselves. Especially with the current corrupt mayor in charge. If Chicago wanted to REALLY save lives, they recruit Michael Bloomberg out of retirement to be the mayer and clean up like he did in New York.

    I know it won't happen, common sense like that will not be tolerated. Besides...who cares? They're just young black males and mostly gang members!

    Meanwhile what's the over/under for the numbers of killed and shot for Chicago for Labor Day weekend? Probably big numbers, unfortunately.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    Clay what you say is correct and most of us know it. What pgr wants is the repeal of the 2nd amendment and we all know that's not going to happen. Even pgr knows it. Any national politician who pushed it would kill his political career.

    that guy while I did not see the racial breakdown of this weekends victims but I was pretty sure that the majority were black males. I still say that if whites were killed in those numbers, we'd be hearing more about it. It made the news, but not like it was a big important story or anything.

    If Chicago really wanted to do something about it they'd have to start a "stop and frisk" program like New York did, which was very successful in cutting down the numbers of gun killings in that city. Who got stopped and frisked the most: young black and hispanic males. Whose lives were saved by the success of "stop and frisk"? young black and hispanic males.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 8yr
    6.4k
    jared glad the weekend is over, maybe now the people of Chicago can get some relief. Then again, maybe not: on Monday one woman was killed and seven others shot. And the weekend numbers have gone up, now it's 14 killed but we hear that 2 killed and 3 of the wounded were shot by the police.

    When you say that ..."countless suburbs outside of Chicago aren't beholden to these strict gun laws. They actively seek out poor people from Chicago to purchase their guns and it is quite easy to take mass transportation out to the various suburbs"...

    Absolutely correct. And if gun sales were to be banned with 50 miles of the Chicago city limits you'd see guns stores spring up 51 miles away. A 100 mile gun ban would mean gun shops 101 miles away. Then maybe there would be special busses set up to carry the customers out to the shops to purchase those guns, much like busses take gamblers to the casinos all over the country. The customers will ALWAYS find the suppliers.

    It's all about supply and demand, and making MONEY. The gun dealers want to make the MONEY, the gang bangers want the guns, and no laws will stop them.

    You can blame the former corrupt mayor for all of the problems, or the current corrupt mayor, but that won't solve it...I don't think anything CAN solve it.

    One thing about this problem: I don't know the racial breakdown of the victims, but I'm guessing they are mostly young black males. If the vast majority were white it would certainly get more attention.