Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitley
Answer: Yes but at a cost that many find unreasonable (Generally violation of the 4th Amendment)
|
I am fortunate that I have never lived in a high crime neighborhood where you have to be concerned for your life - or the life of your wife and kids - when they just run down to the grocery store and I assume that most of the people living in the Villages have not lived in high crime neighborhoods. If I had lived in a high crime area, I would want a heavy police presence in my neighborhood and I would probably support police stopping certain people.
It might impact various ethnic groups differently. However, a recent study in Minnesota found that blacks represent nine times more criminal offenders overall and 10 times more serious offenders than whites. So if you are looking for suspects, I would expect that you would focus on certain groups and not focus on other groups.
It is easy for people who live in the Villages to support ending stop, search, and frisk. It won't impact our lives so we get the bonus of virtue signaling without bearing the consequences of our policies. However, I suggest that you also show some concern for poor people living in high crime neighborhoods. The elderly grandmother who is afraid to go out during the day; the kids who are afraid to go to the park; the husband who is afraid to walk in his neighborhood at night.
A recent study found that the majority of residents in low-income “fragile communities” — including both urban and rural areas — want more police presence, not less. In the more than a dozen low-income urban areas surveyed, 53% of residents want more police presence while 41% want the same — only 6% want less. I think we know who the 6% are.
I agree that it is a balancing act. Does the inconvenience of an innocent person being stopped for a few minutes outweigh the deaths of many innocent people?