View Full Version : Do fewer police stops increase homicides?
Rainger99
07-20-2023, 07:02 PM
New study shows that if the police make fewer stops, there is an increase in homicides.
I guess defunding the police has consequences.
New Statistical Evidence Supports the "Minneapolis Effect" as an Explanation for Increases in Homicides (https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/17/new-statistical-evidence-supports-the-minneapolis-effect-as-an-explanation-for-increases-in-homicides/)
Two Bills
07-21-2023, 03:50 AM
All crime numbers took off when cops were put in cars, and stopped patrolling on foot. Period!
BillY41
07-21-2023, 04:50 AM
When you have an unforgiving boss 9-11 your department has to be mobile to handle the calls. Best of both worlds mobile and foot patrol.
Whitley
07-21-2023, 07:32 AM
Under Mayor Bloomberg the NYC police did random (? not sure if I'd call it random) stop and frisk. They took many guns off the streets, and high crime neighborhoods saw a reduction in crime. Their claim was that it fell under the Terry Stop (Terry v Ohio). I do not believe they had a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime having been, about to be or in the process of happening. It was stopped under DeBlasio (may have been challenged in court as well) and crime went up. There are ways to reduce crime, but some of those ways infringe on peoples rights (in my opinion). Interesting factoid about DeBlasio. He and his wife are getting a divorce. He said in an interview, that he wondered if her being a self proclaimed lesbian should have been a warning that they would run into problems with the marriage. Can not make this stuff up.
Whitley
07-21-2023, 07:50 AM
When you have an unforgiving boss 9-11 your department has to be mobile to handle the calls. Best of both worlds mobile and foot patrol.
Growing up in NYC, I recall the foot patrol police. We would see the same officer after school each day. He was hurt in the line of duty and many of us (schoolkids) sent cards and even visited him when he was in rehab. School did not make us, parents didn't force us. He was just our cop friend. How times have changed.
golfing eagles
07-21-2023, 07:50 AM
Under Mayor Bloomberg the NYC police did random (? not sure if I'd call it random) stop and search. They took many guns off the streets, and high crime neighborhoods saw a reduction in crime. It was stopped under DeBlasio (may have been challenged in court as well) and crime went up. There are ways to reduce crime, but some of those ways infringe on peoples rights (in my opinion). Interesting factoid about DeBlasio. He and his wife are getting a divorce. He said in an interview, that he wondered if her being a self proclaimed lesbian should have been a warning that they would run into problems with the marriage. Can not make this stuff up.
This is easy. Giuliani cleaned the city up, DeBlasio turned it back into a city run by like minded mayors. Worst thing that happened was ending stop and frisk
Stu from NYC
07-21-2023, 07:59 AM
This is easy. Giuliani cleaned the city up, DeBlasio turned it back into a city run by like minded mayors. Worst thing that happened was ending stop and frisk
Very true. Felt safe walking around the city at night and taking train home.
Gpsma
07-21-2023, 10:54 AM
Under Mayor Bloomberg the NYC police did random (? not sure if I'd call it random) stop and frisk. They took many guns off the streets, and high crime neighborhoods saw a reduction in crime. Their claim was that it fell under the Terry Stop (Terry v Ohio). I do not believe they had a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime having been, about to be or in the process of happening. It was stopped under DeBlasio (may have been challenged in court as well) and crime went up. There are ways to reduce crime, but some of those ways infringe on peoples rights (in my opinion). Interesting factoid about DeBlasio. He and his wife are getting a divorce. He said in an interview, that he wondered if her being a self proclaimed lesbian should have been a warning that they would run into problems with the marriage. Can not make this stuff up.
I was never a big fan of stop and frisk. It sorta smacked at some Nazi saying “papers please”. Yes, it did catch some bad guys and got guns off the streets but it also interfered with good people, minding their business, being frisked. Remember reading about one NYPD cop with an unusual shift who was stopped almost weekly walking home at 3am.
Stop and frisk was only one tool in Guilianis approach. The most significant one was to go after minor crime…turnstile jumping, squeegee guys and vandalism.
DiBlasio is separating not getting divorced. Still living together but seeing others. Yep, that should work out real well!
Two Bills
07-21-2023, 11:00 AM
Growing up in NYC, I recall the foot patrol police. We would see the same officer after school each day. He was hurt in the line of duty and many of us (schoolkids) sent cards and even visited him when he was in rehab. School did not make us, parents didn't force us. He was just our cop friend. How times have changed.
My uncle was one of our local foot patrol Bobbies.
I had to go to other areas to be a child menace to society!
OrangeBlossomBaby
07-21-2023, 09:08 PM
I was never a big fan of stop and frisk. It sorta smacked at some Nazi saying “papers please”. Yes, it did catch some bad guys and got guns off the streets but it also interfered with good people, minding their business, being frisked. Remember reading about one NYPD cop with an unusual shift who was stopped almost weekly walking home at 3am.
Stop and frisk was only one tool in Guilianis approach. The most significant one was to go after minor crime…turnstile jumping, squeegee guys and vandalism.
DiBlasio is separating not getting divorced. Still living together but seeing others. Yep, that should work out real well!
I used to jump the turnstiles sometimes when I lived in Boston. I had a T-pass. But once in awhile - you're just approaching the turnstile and you can hear the sub car coming - you're holding your guitar case in one hand, and the flap of your purse is making it hard to find the pass so - just hop on over. I also would always check at Harvard Square, because sometimes the turnstiles weren't clicking in place properly and you could pull it back a click, and it'd let you go through - no charge!
The squeegee guys in NYC are the scourge of the city though. Oy vey.
Pballer
07-21-2023, 09:21 PM
Stop and frisk proved that you can reduce crime by violating people's constitutional rights.
skippy05
07-22-2023, 05:45 AM
All forms of crime reduce if city police over police traffic like crazy. Write intense tickets for any and all speeding, rolling stops at stop signs and right on reds, etc. City of Avondale in Atlanta has done this for years and it works. Drive just outside that city limits and crime is off the chain. Live within city limits and crime is to a minimum.
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 05:51 AM
Stop and frisk proved that you can reduce crime by violating people's constitutional rights.
Didn’t realize carrying illegal weapons or drugs was a constitutional right. I’m more than happy for a police officer to stop me if it gets more criminals off the streets
Blackbird45
07-22-2023, 06:30 AM
First, I believe the people that were screaming defund the police really want retraining of the police and that requires more funding.
As far as crime a lot of crimes either comes from poverty, despair and just outright stupidity.
Maybe a TV campaign showing how most crimes are committed by morons would send a message.
You no longer want to be married, in the long run it's cheaper to get a divorce than turning to murder.
When it comes to stealing, get it through their thick skulls if you steal a million and get caught you will probably spend 10 years in jail. If you have half a brain, you can earn more than a million in the same amount of time and enjoy your freedom.
Lot of people are worried about what they teach in school these days, maybe the first thing the children should be taught is how to earn a living and have a decent life.
ThirdOfFive
07-22-2023, 06:38 AM
All forms of crime reduce if city police over police traffic like crazy. Write intense tickets for any and all speeding, rolling stops at stop signs and right on reds, etc. City of Avondale in Atlanta has done this for years and it works. Drive just outside that city limits and crime is off the chain. Live within city limits and crime is to a minimum.
True words.
I think we see examples of that here in and around TV on a daily basis. Some of read asteriskasteriskasterisk
asteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk and nary a day goes by when there ISN'T a story about some guy being stopped for unreadable license plate, stopping at a stop sign with tires over the solid white line, burned out tail light, or whatever; K-9 gets called and "alerts" to the possibility of drugs in the vehicle or on the person, a search ensues and bingo! Another drug bust. The other biggie is petty theft: you can count on at least four stories per week where someone (or several someones) are caught at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Winn-Dixie, etc. with shoplifted items, arrested and processed for dollar amounts that seem puny to many of us. One of my favorites is a well-dressed, somewhat older lady who was caught on Wal-Mart store surveillance at one of those self-service checkouts not paying for her stuff. From the looks of it, it appeared that it was more a case of absentmindedness than theft. She left the store, got into a blue golf cart (surveillance had that on tape too) and left. I don't recall the dollar amount but I believe it was under $100. The interesting thing was that the cops asked, through the reporting publication, that anyone with knowledge of this woman contact them! That the cops would actually do that is remarkable. In cities and areas where many if not most of us come from, that is a belly laugh on the part of the cops rather than a track-down and arrest.
The cops around here know who the troublemakers and keep the pressure on. There is a fair amount of petty crime around here, but almost never anything major.
ThirdOfFive
07-22-2023, 06:44 AM
First, I believe the people that were screaming defund the police really want retraining of the police and that requires more funding.
As far as crime a lot of crimes either comes from poverty, despair and just outright stupidity.
Maybe a TV campaign showing how most crimes are committed by morons would send a message.
You no longer want to be married, in the long run it's cheaper to get a divorce than turning to murder.
When it comes to stealing, get it through their thick skulls if you steal a million and get caught you will probably spend 10 years in jail. If you have half a brain, you can earn more than a million in the same amount of time and enjoy your freedom.
Lot of people are worried about what they teach in school these days, maybe the first thing the children should be taught is how to earn a living and have a decent life.
Never said better.
Dantes
07-22-2023, 07:17 AM
Crime is crime all should be pursued
If someone breaks into your home and only takes a dollar are you going to call the police if not give me your address lol I bet no one gives me there address just an opinion and unapproved poll
Taltarzac725
07-22-2023, 07:22 AM
Probably not in the Villages. Any murder near the Villages usually involves domestic violence of some kind. And the violence has already happened by the time the Sumter County Sheriff's Office employees have arrived.
Wondering
07-22-2023, 07:41 AM
New study shows that if the police make fewer stops, there is an increase in homicides.
I guess defunding the police has consequences.
New Statistical Evidence Supports the "Minneapolis Effect" as an Explanation for Increases in Homicides (https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/17/new-statistical-evidence-supports-the-minneapolis-effect-as-an-explanation-for-increases-in-homicides/)
Your source has a circulation of on only 50,000 subscribers and is a Libertarian publication partially subsidized buy Charles Koch. It is another source for conspiracies. Defund the police doesn't mean eliminate police or cut back their presence in vital areas. Stop spreading your garbage! Do some legitimate research before you post.
ThirdOfFive
07-22-2023, 07:58 AM
Your source has a circulation of on only 50,000 subscribers and is a Libertarian publication partially subsidized buy Charles Koch. It is another source for conspiracies. Defund the police doesn't mean eliminate police or cut back their presence in vital areas. Stop spreading your garbage! Do some legitimate research before you post.
My suggestion: Quoting valid research to refute something that is presented, here or wherever, is a far more effective tool for making one's point than insults or anger are.
Vermilion Villager
07-22-2023, 08:01 AM
New study shows that if the police make fewer stops, there is an increase in homicides.
I guess defunding the police has consequences.
New Statistical Evidence Supports the "Minneapolis Effect" as an Explanation for Increases in Homicides (https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/17/new-statistical-evidence-supports-the-minneapolis-effect-as-an-explanation-for-increases-in-homicides/)
1. They never defunded police in Minneapolis
2. If you want a Minneapolis statistic maybe you should look at a Minneapolis news source. Minneapolis officials tout lower crime statistics in 2023 so far - CBS Minnesota (https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-officials-tout-lower-crime-statistics-in-2023-so-far/)
:mornincoffee:
Vermilion Villager
07-22-2023, 08:05 AM
My suggestion: Quoting valid research to refute something that is presented, here or wherever, is a far more effective tool for making one's point than insults or anger are.
And sometime you just have to point out stupid for what it is..........
Bill14564
07-22-2023, 08:11 AM
Your source has a circulation of on only 50,000 subscribers and is a Libertarian publication partially subsidized buy Charles Koch. It is another source for conspiracies. Defund the police doesn't mean eliminate police or cut back their presence in vital areas. Stop spreading your garbage! Do some legitimate research before you post.
What does the word "defund" mean in your world? According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund) it means "to withdraw funding from." So either the police will do more with less or they will do less with less which sounds a lot like eliminating or cutting back.
Please note that this "Libertarian publication partially subsidized buy(sic) Charles Koch" cited a recently published study that supports its position. Can you cite a study that supports your position?
ThirdOfFive
07-22-2023, 08:16 AM
What does the word "defund" mean in your world? According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund) it means "to withdraw funding from." So either the police will do more with less or they will do less with less which sounds a lot like eliminating or cutting back.
Please note that this "Libertarian publication partially subsidized buy(sic) Charles Koch" cited a recently published study that supports its position. Can you cite a study that supports your position?
Good post.
I'm no big believer in "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", but I was there when "The Minneapolis effect" was taking place. The push was to take funding earmarked for the police and give it to SOCIAL WORKERS, who would then accompany police to various crime or potential crime scenes and work their supposed magic to somehow talk the bad guy down, thus either minimizing damage done at the crime scene or possibly even prevent the crime from happening. Some talk at the time about even having social workers respond alone. Fine in theory, but the two groups who got the biggest laugh out of this were cops and social workers, for what I think are more-than-obvious reasons.
Thankfully, it didn't pass. Cooler heads prevailed. But the fact that it was even seriously considered says far too much about the mentality behind it.
hypart
07-22-2023, 10:56 AM
The only place that I know that has defunded the police is The Villages
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 10:59 AM
The only place that I know that has defunded the police is The Villages
Very hard to do since The Villages doesn’t have a police force
Pugchief
07-22-2023, 12:29 PM
Stop and frisk proved that you can reduce crime by violating people's constitutional rights.
Didn’t realize carrying illegal weapons or drugs was a constitutional right. I’m more than happy for a police officer to stop me if it gets more criminals off the streets
Agree. The whole Broken Windows thing worked.
Pugchief
07-22-2023, 12:32 PM
True words.
I think we see examples of that here in and around TV on a daily basis. Some of read asteriskasteriskasterisk
asteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk and nary a day goes by when there ISN'T a story about some guy being stopped for unreadable license plate, stopping at a stop sign with tires over the solid white line, burned out tail light, or whatever; K-9 gets called and "alerts" to the possibility of drugs in the vehicle or on the person, a search ensues and bingo! Another drug bust. The other biggie is petty theft: you can count on at least four stories per week where someone (or several someones) are caught at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Winn-Dixie, etc. with shoplifted items, arrested and processed for dollar amounts that seem puny to many of us. One of my favorites is a well-dressed, somewhat older lady who was caught on Wal-Mart store surveillance at one of those self-service checkouts not paying for her stuff. From the looks of it, it appeared that it was more a case of absentmindedness than theft. She left the store, got into a blue golf cart (surveillance had that on tape too) and left. I don't recall the dollar amount but I believe it was under $100. The interesting thing was that the cops asked, through the reporting publication, that anyone with knowledge of this woman contact them! That the cops would actually do that is remarkable. In cities and areas where many if not most of us come from, that is a belly laugh on the part of the cops rather than a track-down and arrest.
The cops around here know who the troublemakers and keep the pressure on. There is a fair amount of petty crime around here, but almost never anything major.
Exactly. If you look at what has turned made some large cities like SF LA and Chicago virtually uninhabitable, it is forced soft policing combined with DAs who refuse to prosecute. If criminals know there are no consequences, they will act accordingly.
Pballer
07-22-2023, 12:39 PM
Didn’t realize carrying illegal weapons or drugs was a constitutional right. I’m more than happy for a police officer to stop me if it gets more criminals off the streets
Unless you were black or Latino, NYC police wouldn't stop and frisk you. Seeing as you are villager and 99.99% of villagers are white, I can see how you might not mind stop and frisk since it would not affect you. The Constitution is supposed to protect everyone from unreasonable searches, not just citizens who are in the majority.
Bill14564
07-22-2023, 12:42 PM
Didn’t realize carrying illegal weapons or drugs was a constitutional right. I’m more than happy for a police officer to stop me if it gets more criminals off the streets
Agree. The whole Broken Windows thing worked.
Choose one of the following:
1. Someone's privilege is showing
2. Someone hasn't thought this through
3. Someone is quite comfortable giving up their fourth amendment rights
For me, I don't see a difference between stop & frisk, randomly stopping and searching cars, or knocking on your door at 9PM and searching your house. Some would say, "if you have nothint to hide.." but I don't agree with that. While I would like criminals off the streets and out of society, I'm not willing to give up my constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches.
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 01:02 PM
Unless you were black or Latino, NYC police wouldn't stop and frisk you. Seeing as you are villager and 99.99% of villagers are white, I can see how you might not mind stop and frisk since it would not affect you. The Constitution is supposed to protect everyone from unreasonable searches, not just citizens who are in the majority.
So if I’m white and don’t mind getting stopped and frisked to help deter the criminals, why should someone with darker skin mind unless they have something to hide????
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 01:04 PM
Choose one of the following:
1. Someone's privilege is showing
2. Someone hasn't thought this through
3. Someone is quite comfortable giving up their fourth amendment rights
For me, I don't see a difference between stop & frisk, randomly stopping and searching cars, or knocking on your door at 9PM and searching your house. Some would say, "if you have nothint to hide.." but I don't agree with that. While I would like criminals off the streets and out of society, I'm not willing to give up my constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches.
If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, would that search be unreasonable?
Pballer
07-22-2023, 01:21 PM
So if I’m white and don’t mind getting stopped and frisked to help deter the criminals, why should someone with darker skin mind unless they have something to hide????
Because it's their constitutional right. Sad that many people never learned civics in school. Sad that immigrants who become US citizens know more about civics than native born Americans.
Bill14564
07-22-2023, 01:30 PM
If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, would that search be unreasonable?
The accusation was that "suspicious manner" included simply being present on the street while black or brown. I believe at least one judge agreed that was the case.
I don't want to be stopped and frisked, have my vehicle searched, or have my home invaded because an officer felt my behavior was "suspicious." If I don't want it happening to me then I can't be okay with it happening to someone else.
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 01:36 PM
Because it's their constitutional right. Sad that many people never learned civics in school. Sad that immigrants who become US citizens know more about civics than native born Americans.
If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, it constitutes probable cause. End of civics lesson
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 01:39 PM
The accusation was that "suspicious manner" included simply being present on the street while black or brown. I believe at least one judge agreed that was the case.
I don't want to be stopped and frisked, have my vehicle searched, or have my home invaded because an officer felt my behavior was "suspicious." If I don't want it happening to me then I can't be okay with it happening to someone else.
Sorry, but just being there is not suspicious. But apparently the grievance industry was able to parlay that into a lame excuse to end an effective policing tool
Bill14564
07-22-2023, 01:54 PM
Sorry, but just being there is not suspicious. But apparently the grievance industry was able to parlay that into a lame excuse to end an effective policing tool
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it swims like a duck and it smells like a duck then sure, you could make an argument that it really is a hippopotamus in disguise.
The grievance industry looked at the data and the data told the story. I have no interest in researching all the statistics but the few that I've seen indicated that weapons were found in about 14 out of every 10,000 stops for "suspicious activity" and there was some kind of fine, arrest, or seizure of a weapon in only about 1,200 out 10,000 stops. If your "suspicious activity" sensor fails 88% of the time and is only effective at removing weapons 0.14% of the time then that sensor is seriously broken.
Was it an effective policing tool? I don't believe the numbers will back that up in an objective way. Subjectively, sure, harassment is an effective tool. But that goes back to my initial post: Is it okay because you know as a white man it won't affect you? Is it okay because you haven't thought about how else it might be used? Or, is it okay because you don't value your fourth amendment rights?
Joe V.
07-22-2023, 02:03 PM
Stop and frisk is the result of a "reasonable suspicion ".
"Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officer should be allowed to stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate. Unlike probable cause that uses a reasonable person standard, reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer."
- The Law Dictionary, featuring Black's Law, 2nd edition
Stop and frisk proved that you can reduce crime by violating people's constitutional rights.
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 02:10 PM
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it swims like a duck and it smells like a duck then sure, you could make an argument that it really is a hippopotamus in disguise.
The grievance industry looked at the data and the data told the story. I have no interest in researching all the statistics but the few that I've seen indicated that weapons were found in about 14 out of every 10,000 stops for "suspicious activity" and there was some kind of fine, arrest, or seizure of a weapon in only about 1,200 out 10,000 stops. If your "suspicious activity" sensor fails 88% of the time and is only effective at removing weapons 0.14% of the time then that sensor is seriously broken.
Was it an effective policing tool? I don't believe the numbers will back that up in an objective way. Subjectively, sure, harassment is an effective tool. But that goes back to my initial post: Is it okay because you know as a white man it won't affect you? Is it okay because you haven't thought about how else it might be used? Or, is it okay because you don't value your fourth amendment rights?
You want data? How about 76% of violent crimes are committed by a demographic that is 12% of the population. I’ll continue to support our law enforcement officers, thank you
Bill14564
07-22-2023, 02:20 PM
You want data? How about 76% of violent crimes are committed by a demographic that is 12% of the population. I’ll continue to support our law enforcement officers, thank you
And that is your justification for stopping black and brown people at a rate of one stop for every resident every year with an arrest rate of less than 1%? I believe that thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place.
I support the LEOs when they abide by the L. Law enforcement already have enough authorizations to harass citizens without overstepping the law. When they go beyond that then they do not deserve our support. When laws are enforced in an unconstitutional manner then they do not deserve our support. Going further, when legislatures enact laws with no concern for the Constitution or that are clearly unconstitutional then they do not deserve our support.
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 02:28 PM
And that is your justification for stopping black and brown people at a rate of one stop for every resident every year with an arrest rate of less than 1%? I believe that thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place.
I support the LEOs when they abide by the L. Law enforcement already have enough authorizations to harass citizens without overstepping the law. When they go beyond that then they do not deserve our support. When laws are enforced in an unconstitutional manner then they do not deserve our support. Going further, when legislatures enact laws with no concern for the Constitution or that are clearly unconstitutional then they do not deserve our support.
Exactly the kind of excuses that are devolving us into anarchy. ALL people should follow the same laws and no one should invent excuses for bad behavior. I don’t care if someone is poor or had no father. My father was in that situation and he didn’t deal drugs or pimp or shoot people. And almost all tragic police interactions have been the result of resisting arrest and not following the instructions of the police. Enough with excuses and frisk away
Bill14564
07-22-2023, 02:31 PM
Exactly the kind of excuses that are devolving us into anarchy. ALL people should follow the same laws and no one should invent excuses for bad behavior. I don’t care if someone is poor or had no father. My father was in that situation and he didn’t deal drugs or pimp or shoot people. And almost all tragic police interactions have been the result of resisting arrest and not following the instructions of the police. Enough with excuses and frisk away
To me, those two statements are contradictory.
Byte1
07-22-2023, 02:38 PM
Stop and Frisk was just encouraging officers in NYC to frisk suspicious persons when they stopped them to question them in order to protect the police officer. If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is or might have an intention of committing a crime, the officer stops and question that person, in an attempt to prevent a crime. The frisk part is actually to protect the officer from harm. In NYC, it became the mantra(?) for getting illegal weapons off the street, but in reality it stopped a lot of criminal activity. Or, at least postponed the criminal acts. A police officer may search your vehicle to the extent of within arms reach of the driver when he stops you for a violation. Arms reach includes glove compartment, under you seat and in the center console. I do not know the SOP for each state, but the judges have allowed this procedure in many states.
I've never been frisked(searched) but I don't believe it would harm me. And since I support law enforcement, I do not wish to handicap their unappreciated job by hindering their ability to do that job.
Taltarzac725
07-22-2023, 04:34 PM
If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, it constitutes probable cause. End of civics lesson
Except that with some it is just while walking as a minority. Or driving. Or sleeping.
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 04:42 PM
Except that with some it is just while walking as a minority. Or driving. Or sleeping.
Que sera sera. Like I said, if I don’t mind being stopped, then they shouldn’t either unless they are less than law abiding. I see minorities on the news all the time clamoring to make their neighborhoods safer. If it takes a minute of inconvenience, so be it. And if the law abiding minorities object, then they have made their own bed
Taltarzac725
07-22-2023, 06:27 PM
Que sera sera. Like I said, if I don’t mind being stopped, then they shouldn’t either unless they are less than law abiding. I see minorities on the news all the time clamoring to make their neighborhoods safer. If it takes a minute of inconvenience, so be it. And if the law abiding minorities object, then they have made their own bed
Except a senior who is white probably is not going to treated like an African American of 35 or under at a stop by police.
Caymus
07-22-2023, 07:21 PM
Except a senior who is white probably is not going to treated like an African American of 35 or under at a stop by police.
....and would an African America senior of 70 be treated the same as one that is 35?
thelegges
07-22-2023, 09:35 PM
Farmer did a radio spot, that 2,000 responded calls were a non issue from inadequate alarm systems or lack of ability to use them correctly. Stated it would save lives if you knew how to operate your system. Thinking 2,000 calls this year, and yet I haven’t noticed many Leo car’s driving around. Maybe they are in stealth mode
Taltarzac725
07-22-2023, 09:40 PM
....and would an African America senior of 70 be treated the same as one that is 35?
That would probably depend on where he was and what his relationship to the people in the community was over time.
I doubt, for instance, if some Wildwood, FL African-American leader of 70 or so would be pulled over quickly by any one in that community who knows that community. Details are very important.
And if you pushed back that scenario to the 1930s, it would be a different story.
golfing eagles
07-22-2023, 09:47 PM
Except a senior who is white probably is not going to treated like an African American of 35 or under at a stop by police.
So what? A white senior is a whole lot less likely to be dealing crack or be carrying an illegal weapon. Remember Willie Sutton? When asked why he robbed banks his reply was “because that’s where the money is “
Taltarzac725
07-22-2023, 11:09 PM
So what? A white senior is a whole lot less likely to be dealing crack or be carrying an illegal weapon. Remember Willie Sutton? When asked why he robbed banks his reply was “because that’s where the money is “
Willie Suttton used disguises to carry out bank robberies. Willie Sutton — FBI (https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/willie-sutton)
He did not want to be noticed.
Two Bills
07-23-2023, 03:50 AM
No fear of stop and search in our village.
The last policeman spotted here just got lost on his way to MacDonald's.
jimbomaybe
07-23-2023, 05:40 AM
Choose one of the following:
1. Someone's privilege is showing
2. Someone hasn't thought this through
3. Someone is quite comfortable giving up their fourth amendment rights
For me, I don't see a difference between stop & frisk, randomly stopping and searching cars, or knocking on your door at 9PM and searching your house. Some would say, "if you have nothint to hide.." but I don't agree with that. While I would like criminals off the streets and out of society, I'm not willing to give up my constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches.
No thinking person would want to live in a police state.“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin. The police have been moved away from a more proactive approach , traffic stops, street stops ( two different things) the police have gotten the message and are doing less of both, unfortunately those municipalities in the forefront of this are becoming places less and less attractive to live or do business, with all classes of crime showing a great increase some have discussed having the police stop enforcing minor traffic laws all together, in Chicago they don't like the idea of the police to chase people on foot, what is the cop to do? let'em go , not going to be much in the way of any punishment if and and when there is a conviction anyway, why would a police officer put themselves at risk, answer your calls, write reports,, no worries
golfing eagles
07-23-2023, 06:42 AM
No thinking person would want to live in a police state.“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin. The police have been moved away from a more proactive approach , traffic stops, street stops ( two different things) the police have gotten the message and are doing less of both, unfortunately those municipalities in the forefront of this are becoming places less and less attractive to live or do business, with all classes of crime showing a great increase some have discussed having the police stop enforcing minor traffic laws all together, in Chicago they don't like the idea of the police to chase people on foot, what is the cop to do? let'em go , not going to be much in the way of any punishment if and and when there is a conviction anyway, why would a police officer put themselves at risk, answer your calls, write reports,, no worries
Exactly. We can have effective policing without having a police state. But the bleeding hearts and the grievance industry need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior
Bill14564
07-23-2023, 06:56 AM
Exactly. We can have effective policing without having a police state. But the bleeding hearts and the grievance industry need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior
No one wants to live in a police state, especially old, white guys living in the Villages in the Free State of Florida.
On the other hand, a heavy police presence in the cities is a great idea. You can't go wrong heavily policing brown people.
That phrase is quite ironic after reading the excuses for stop & frisk abuses. I guess the "criminal" in the behavior is in the eye of the beholder.
Pugchief
07-23-2023, 07:16 AM
No one wants to live in a police state, especially old, white guys living in the Villages in the Free State of Florida.
On the other hand, a heavy police presence in the cities is a great idea. You can't go wrong heavily policing brown people.
That phrase is quite ironic after reading the excuses for stop & frisk abuses. I guess the "criminal" in the behavior is in the eye of the beholder.
Why does every discussion these days devolve into a lecture on racism? The reason there is no need for stop and frisk in TV is bc there is very little crime in TV, not bc TV happens to be mostly white. The reason it works in big cities is bc that's where they have a crime problem. Is crime a problem of cities themselves or of the racial demographics of those cities? I'm going with it's a problem of big cities, exacerbated by decades of stupid policy and corruption. And it has been made even worse by recent attempts to cease actually prosecuting crimes. If you don't enforce laws, criminals flourish.
ThirdOfFive
07-23-2023, 07:32 AM
Exactly. We can have effective policing without having a police state. But the bleeding hearts and the grievance industry need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior
Yep. Some of the stuff that gets discussed, passed and implemented seems like carte blanche for criminals to operate.
One of the issues (one of many) as I see it, is that the standards are so loosely defined, especially "reasonable suspicion". The most cogent explanation of that which I was able to find is "Stop and frisk law must be based on more than whimsy but less than probable cause; it must be based on (1) reasonable suspicion, (2) good cause to believe, and (3) articulable suspicion" (U.S. DOJ website, Office of Justice Programs). But even here it all comes down to how one defines "reasonable", and I'll bet a dollar to a donut that your average Villager is going to have a far different definition of that term than, say, your average inner city twentysomething who lives close to, or actually within, an area with significant gang/drug activity taking place.
One tries to stay away from racial stereotypes, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of gang/drug activity is conducted by youth gangs, and the simple fact alone that inner-city populations tend to be heavily minority means that odds are pretty good that there are going to be minority youths and young adults carrying illegal firearms in those areas. But it is not just guns. "Authorities throughout the country report that gangs are responsible for most of the serious violent crime in the major cities of the United States. Gangs engage in an array of criminal activities including assault, burglary, drive-by shooting, extortion, homicide, identification fraud, money laundering, prostitution operations, robbery, sale of stolen property, and weapons trafficking."(Justice dot gov, National Drug Intelligence Center). Given all that, then, it seems more reasonable to stop and frisk certain minority youths and young adults in or near those areas, especially at night, than it would, say, to stop and frisk a Caucasian guy in a suit getting into his car after fueling it up, or an Asian grandmotherly type walking down the street with a bag of groceries. The guy in the suit and the Asian granny would have legitimate beefs about being randomly stopped and frisked. The minority youths and young adults in or near those areas of drug/gang involvement? Not so much.
I know it sounds draconian and unacceptable to the advocates and activists, but in my opinion stop-and-frisk is NOT an imposition on the rights of persons, especially youths and young adults, living in heavily minority high-crime areas. It would seem like "reasonable suspicion" is a fact of life in such places. Not involved in gangs or drugs? No criminal history? Then no worries. After a couple of stops the cops are going to have a pretty good idea of who is and who is not likely to be carrying something that he or she shouldn't be, and react accordingly. But in crime-infested areas such as being discussed here, it is, or should be, something that the people living there just have to accept.
golfing eagles
07-23-2023, 07:37 AM
Why does every discussion these days devolve into a lecture on racism? The reason there is no need for stop and frisk in TV is bc there is very little crime in TV, not bc TV happens to be mostly white. The reason it works in big cities is bc that's where they have a crime problem. Is crime a problem of cities themselves or of the racial demographics of those cities? I'm going with it's a problem of big cities, exacerbated by decades of stupid policy and corruption. And it has been made even worse by recent attempts to cease actually prosecuting crimes. If you don't enforce laws, criminals flourish.
Agreed. It’s not racism. If purple Norwegians were committing the majority of crimes, then the police should be focusing on purple Norwegians. This is what most countries do. Unfortunately, in the US it has been termed “profiling” and given a negative connotation. Well, if it saves innocent lives, the grievance morons can insert it you know where
Dlpdo
07-24-2023, 10:41 PM
Didn’t realize carrying illegal weapons or drugs was a constitutional right. I’m more than happy for a police officer to stop me if it gets more criminals off the streets
Given it is overtly obvious that the writer is not talking about illegal weapons and guns I assume your reply was written just to be nasty. You may be willing to give up your protection against being searched for no reason without a warrant but I would guess most people wouldn’t.
Dlpdo
07-24-2023, 10:45 PM
So if I’m white and don’t mind getting stopped and frisked to help deter the criminals, why should someone with darker skin mind unless they have something to hide????
The old if I feel this way then everybody else should feel this way and have the same opinion as I do and if they don’t they must be guilty of something argument. Sad, just sad.
golfing eagles
07-25-2023, 05:32 AM
New study shows that if the police make fewer stops, there is an increase in homicides.
I guess defunding the police has consequences.
New Statistical Evidence Supports the "Minneapolis Effect" as an Explanation for Increases in Homicides (https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/17/new-statistical-evidence-supports-the-minneapolis-effect-as-an-explanation-for-increases-in-homicides/)
Given it is overtly obvious that the writer is not talking about illegal weapons and guns I assume your reply was written just to be nasty. You may be willing to give up your protection against being searched for no reason without a warrant but I would guess most people wouldn’t.
The old if I feel this way then everybody else should feel this way and have the same opinion as I do and if they don’t they must be guilty of something argument. Sad, just sad.
Looks like it's time for a remedial vocabulary lesson:
What's "sad, just sad" is 26 people shot, 6 fatally in Chicago just this past weekend alone. I wonder if you would feel the same way about stop and frisk if you were one of these victims or their families?
What's possibly "nasty" is when I point out that anyone thinks posts regarding stop and frisk are "overtly and obviously" unrelated to the thread on reduced police stops increase homicides needs a refresher in reading comprehension. And btw, in most jurisdictions, the police do not needs a search warrant when they have stopped someone on the street for suspicious activity or an observed infraction.
ThirdOfFive
07-25-2023, 06:39 AM
Looks like it's time for a remedial vocabulary lesson:
What's "sad, just sad" is 26 people shot, 6 fatally in Chicago just this past weekend alone. I wonder if you would feel the same way about stop and frisk if you were one of these victims or their families?
What's possibly "nasty" is when I point out that anyone thinks posts regarding stop and frisk are "overtly and obviously" unrelated to the thread on reduced police stops increase homicides needs a refresher in reading comprehension. And btw, in most jurisdictions, the police do not needs a search warrant when they have stopped someone on the street for suspicious activity or an observed infraction.
True.
Increased police stops do two things: 1. They get contraband (guns, drugs, whatever) off the streets, AND 2. The very likelihood of being stopped and frisked means in my opinion that criminals will be less likely to carry said contraband in public in the first place.
Whitley
07-25-2023, 09:31 AM
To me, those two statements are contradictory.
I am on the side of protecting our rights, however we really need to address the issue brought up concerning why a small percent of the population is responsible for a large percent of crime. We ignore it, and it does no one any good. Talking about it is a positive. No one wants to send their kids to failing schools, fear for the safety of their kids walking to school, be concerned about gangs like MS13 and Latin Kids getting involved with their children. It needs to be honestly discussed.
ThirdOfFive
07-25-2023, 09:51 AM
I am on the side of protecting our rights, however we really need to address the issue brought up concerning why a small percent of the population is responsible for a large percent of crime. We ignore it, and it does no one any good. Talking about it is a positive. No one wants to send their kids to failing schools, fear for the safety of their kids walking to school, be concerned about gangs like MS13 and Latin Kids getting involved with their children. It needs to be honestly discussed.
Totally agree. However when "honest discussion" is defined as "hate speech", you have a...well...problem. We live in a country, and in a time, where the tail routinely wags the dog.
Bill14564
07-25-2023, 09:56 AM
I am on the side of protecting our rights, however we really need to address the issue brought up concerning why a small percent of the population is responsible for a large percent of crime. We ignore it, and it does no one any good. Talking about it is a positive. No one wants to send their kids to failing schools, fear for the safety of their kids walking to school, be concerned about gangs like MS13 and Latin Kids getting involved with their children. It needs to be honestly discussed.
Absolutely. But using exaggerated statistics doesn't help the credibility of the argument and some of the attitudes expressed in this thread are counter to what this country is supposed to be all about. I have spent time in countries where *I* was the one who could be stopped and frisked for simply walking down the street - it's not where we should want this country to go.
In concept, stop and frisk might work. In practice, it seemed to use race alone as a "suspicious activity" and generated some ugly statistics. If we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 14 of them.
There has to be a way but I sure don't know what it is and I'm concerned that no one else has discovered it yet.
JMintzer
07-25-2023, 01:40 PM
Absolutely. But using exaggerated statistics doesn't help the credibility of the argument and some of the attitudes expressed in this thread are counter to what this country is supposed to be all about. I have spent time in countries where *I* was the one who could be stopped and frisked for simply walking down the street - it's not where we should want this country to go.
In concept, stop and frisk might work. In practice, it seemed to use race alone as a "suspicious activity" and generated some ugly statistics. If we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 14 of them.
There has to be a way but I sure don't know what it is and I'm concerned that no one else has discovered it yet.
Where is the exaggeration that 13% of the population commit about 50% of the homicides and 60% of the violent crimes?
(actually about 1/2 of that number, since the majority of the homicides/violent crimes are committed by males...)
Bill14564
07-25-2023, 01:49 PM
Where is the exaggeration that 13% of the population commit about 50% of the homicides and 60% of the violent crimes?
(actually about 1/2 of that number, since the majority of the homicides/violent crimes are committed by males...)
I remember the numbers given as 76% and 12% but I haven't gone back to check. The actual numbers are surprisingly hard to find.
Cybersprings
07-25-2023, 01:51 PM
I remember the numbers given as 76% and 12% but I haven't gone back to check. The actual numbers are surprisingly hard to find.
I agree with a lot of what you have posted in this thread. However, how can you say the statistics are exaggerated if you don't know the "real" statistics?
Pugchief
07-25-2023, 01:51 PM
gangs like MS13 and Latin Kids
Pretty sure you meant Latin Kings but, not being a gangbanger myself, I can't be sure.
Bill14564
07-25-2023, 01:56 PM
I agree with a lot of what you have posted in this thread. However, how can you say the statistics are exaggerated if you don't know the "real" statistics?
Because everything I *have* found looks more like 35% and 18%. Still over represented but by a factor of two not six.
I will try again to find a good source for clear numbers.
Whitley
07-25-2023, 02:17 PM
I remember the numbers given as 76% and 12% but I haven't gone back to check. The actual numbers are surprisingly hard to find.
We are already splitting into sides. Most agree we need honest discussion, but then throw out words like hate speech. Is saying 6% of the population is responsible for a far higher percent of violent crime than their number (6%) hate speech?. If we do not say the difficult, uneasy things we will never make headway and people will continue to be preyed on by gangs, criminals, and overzealous policing. Talk about getting it from all sides. The good people who want none of it. Feelings are VERY strong on all sides. We shouldn't avoid the subject and we should not discourage speech on the matter. Case in point, I received an infraction from TOTV for the earlier post.
golfing eagles
07-25-2023, 02:26 PM
Absolutely. But using exaggerated statistics doesn't help the credibility of the argument and some of the attitudes expressed in this thread are counter to what this country is supposed to be all about. I have spent time in countries where *I* was the one who could be stopped and frisked for simply walking down the street - it's not where we should want this country to go.
In concept, stop and frisk might work. In practice, it seemed to use race alone as a "suspicious activity" and generated some ugly statistics. If we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 14 of them.
There has to be a way but I sure don't know what it is and I'm concerned that no one else has discovered it yet.
14 out of 10,000??? Talk about exaggerated statistics. Again, if most of the crimes were committed by purple Norwegians, stopping 10,000 of them would probably yield 8500+ violations. Stopping 10,000 80 year old white women would yield zero. Stop calling it racism. Stop making excuses for criminal behavior and whatever else the bicoastal elitist eggheads dream up and focus on catching the criminals and ideally changing the culture that nurtures them. The people who live in these slums want to be safe as well. Let’s help them out and frisk their kids
Bill14564
07-25-2023, 02:38 PM
14 out of 10,000??? Talk about exaggerated statistics. Again, if most of the crimes were committed by purple Norwegians, stopping 10,000 of them would probably yield 8500+ violations. Stopping 10,000 80 year old white women would yield zero. Stop calling it racism. Stop making excuses for criminal behavior and whatever else the bicoastal elitist eggheads dream up and focus on catching the criminals and ideally changing the culture that nurtures them. The people who live in these slums want to be safe as well. Let’s help them out and frisk their kids
Yes, weapons recovered at a rate of 14 individuals for every 10,000 stops as reported in two sources. All citations, arrests, weapons, etc at a rate of 1,210 (I believe) out of every 10,000 stops.
I'm looking up violent crime statistics now and will find the sources for these numbers later.
*** Anyone else interested in helping with this research, please feel free
JMintzer
07-25-2023, 03:09 PM
I remember the numbers given as 76% and 12% but I haven't gone back to check. The actual numbers are surprisingly hard to find.
Regardless, they are so far out of balance that it shows a problem...
JMintzer
07-25-2023, 03:11 PM
Yes, weapons recovered at a rate of 14 individuals for every 10,000 stops as reported in two sources. All citations, arrests, weapons, etc at a rate of 1,210 (I believe) out of every 10,000 stops.
I'm looking up violent crime statistics now and will find the sources for these numbers later.
*** Anyone else interested in helping with this research, please feel free
Oh, THOSE numbers you believe, but the numbers I cited are "inflated"? SMH...
Bill14564
07-25-2023, 03:24 PM
Oh, THOSE numbers you believe, but the numbers I cited are "inflated"? SMH...
I wasn't disputing your numbers yet since they are closer to what I have been able to find so far.
Most statistics can be found or verified online. Numbers that are tossed out with no sourcing, including mine, should be taken with a grain of salt. I am in the process now of finding confirmation and will provide the sourcing when I do. So far I am using the FBI crime statistics and US Census bureau population statistics - I hope those will be considered reliable.
Whitley
07-25-2023, 03:26 PM
[QUOTE=Pugchief;2238708]Pretty sure you meant Latin Kings but, not being a gangbanger myself, I can't be sure.[/Q
Did I really say kids. That is funny. Yes Kings
Bill14564
07-25-2023, 07:58 PM
You want data? How about 76% of violent crimes are committed by a demographic that is 12% of the population. I’ll continue to support our law enforcement officers, thank you
Absolutely. But using exaggerated statistics doesn't help the credibility of the argument and some of the attitudes expressed in this thread are counter to what this country is supposed to be all about. I have spent time in countries where *I* was the one who could be stopped and frisked for simply walking down the street - it's not where we should want this country to go.
In concept, stop and frisk might work. In practice, it seemed to use race alone as a "suspicious activity" and generated some ugly statistics. If we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 14 of them.
There has to be a way but I sure don't know what it is and I'm concerned that no one else has discovered it yet.
Where is the exaggeration that 13% of the population commit about 50% of the homicides and 60% of the violent crimes?
(actually about 1/2 of that number, since the majority of the homicides/violent crimes are committed by males...)
I remember the numbers given as 76% and 12% but I haven't gone back to check. The actual numbers are surprisingly hard to find.
14 out of 10,000??? Talk about exaggerated statistics. Again, if most of the crimes were committed by purple Norwegians, stopping 10,000 of them would probably yield 8500+ violations. Stopping 10,000 80 year old white women would yield zero. Stop calling it racism. Stop making excuses for criminal behavior and whatever else the bicoastal elitist eggheads dream up and focus on catching the criminals and ideally changing the culture that nurtures them. The people who live in these slums want to be safe as well. Let’s help them out and frisk their kids
Yes, weapons recovered at a rate of 14 individuals for every 10,000 stops as reported in two sources. All citations, arrests, weapons, etc at a rate of 1,210 (I believe) out of every 10,000 stops.
I'm looking up violent crime statistics now and will find the sources for these numbers later.
*** Anyone else interested in helping with this research, please feel free
Oh, THOSE numbers you believe, but the numbers I cited are "inflated"? SMH...
FBI crime statistics (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43)
US Census Bureau data (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-asr6h.xlsx)
In 2019 (most recent data available):
White:
76% of population
46% of murders
59% of violent crime (rape, robbery, aggravated assault)
59% of combined (murder numbers are small compared to the rest)
Black:
13% of population
51% of murders
36% of violent crime
36% of combined
So 76% and 12% wasn't close, 50% and 13% was close for murders, and 30% and 18% was close for violent crime.
My stop and frisk numbers were not quite right. I can't find the article that told me 14 out of 10,000 but other articles don't agree. It appears the number should be 1.6% of stops resulted in seizure of weapons. 12% of stops resulted in an arrest of some sort, and 88% of the people stopped were completely innocent.
Then, out of every 10,000 searches:
160 individuals were carrying weapons
1,200 people were arrested
8,800 people were determined to be acting suspiciously and were stopped and searched and found to be innocent
Again, when we are talking about violating an individual's constitutional rights, if we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 160 of them.
jimbomaybe
07-26-2023, 03:55 AM
FBI crime statistics (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43)
US Census Bureau data (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-asr6h.xlsx)
In 2019 (most recent data available):
White:
76% of population
46% of murders
59% of violent crime (rape, robbery, aggravated assault)
59% of combined (murder numbers are small compared to the rest)
Black:
13% of population
51% of murders
36% of violent crime
36% of combined
So 76% and 12% wasn't close, 50% and 13% was close for murders, and 30% and 18% was close for violent crime.
My stop and frisk numbers were not quite right. I can't find the article that told me 14 out of 10,000 but other articles don't agree. It appears the number should be 1.6% of stops resulted in seizure of weapons. 12% of stops resulted in an arrest of some sort, and 88% of the people stopped were completely innocent.
Then, out of every 10,000 searches:
160 individuals were carrying weapons
1,200 people were arrested
8,800 people were determined to be acting suspiciously and were stopped and searched and found to be innocent
Again, when we are talking about violating an individual's constitutional rights, if we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 160 of them.
A little over 10% were arrested for some violation, that does not automatically mean the remainder were not doing something to arouse the interest of a police officer
golfing eagles
07-26-2023, 05:34 AM
FBI crime statistics (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43)
US Census Bureau data (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-asr6h.xlsx)
In 2019 (most recent data available):
White:
76% of population
46% of murders
59% of violent crime (rape, robbery, aggravated assault)
59% of combined (murder numbers are small compared to the rest)
Black:
13% of population
51% of murders
36% of violent crime
36% of combined
So 76% and 12% wasn't close, 50% and 13% was close for murders, and 30% and 18% was close for violent crime.
My stop and frisk numbers were not quite right. I can't find the article that told me 14 out of 10,000 but other articles don't agree. It appears the number should be 1.6% of stops resulted in seizure of weapons. 12% of stops resulted in an arrest of some sort, and 88% of the people stopped were completely innocent.
Then, out of every 10,000 searches:
160 individuals were carrying weapons
1,200 people were arrested
8,800 people were determined to be acting suspiciously and were stopped and searched and found to be innocent
Again, when we are talking about violating an individual's constitutional rights, if we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 160 of them.
Thank you for proving my point. Murder 4 times higher than the representative percentage of population. 1200 arrests/10,000 stops. (Yes, I had posted 6x and could probably find that citation if I looked, but not a relevant difference)That is far MORE successful than I had dreamed. And does anyone consider getting briefly stopped as “suffering”? It’s the victims and families that suffer.
Rainger99
07-26-2023, 06:30 AM
if we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 160 of them.
I think Blackstone meant that it was better to let ten guilty people go free rather than convict an innocent person.
This was at a time that England had more than 200 crimes where the punishment was death so a wrongful conviction had severe consequences.
I don’t think Blackstone was referring to stop and frisks as the penalty for stopping and frisking an innocent person does not have the same impact as executing an innocent person.
Bill14564
07-26-2023, 06:45 AM
I think Blackstone meant that it was better to let ten guilty people go free rather than convict an innocent person.
This was at a time that England had more than 200 crimes where the punishment was death so a wrongful conviction had severe consequences.
I don’t think Blackstone was referring to stop and frisks as the penalty for stopping and frisking an innocent person does not have the same impact as executing an innocent person.
So just a minor violation of the constitution and then only in 88% of the cases.
We're not going to agree on this. Maybe we call it a glass 12% full and 88% empty situation.
My rights are protected by the same government that protects the rights of black people in the city. Those not committing crimes in the city are no less innocent, no less deserving of freedom than I am. If the government can find exceptions for taking away their rights today then there is nothing stopping the government from taking away my rights tomorrow - nothing.
Rainger99
07-26-2023, 07:13 AM
So just a minor violation of the constitution and then only in 88% of the cases.
We're not going to agree on this. Maybe we call it a glass 12% full and 88% empty situation.
My rights are protected by the same government that protects the rights of black people in the city. Those not committing crimes in the city are no less innocent, no less deserving of freedom than I am. If the government can find exceptions for taking away their rights today then there is nothing stopping the government from taking away my rights tomorrow - nothing.
The original post asked whether fewer police stops increase the number of homicides. Did you answer the question? The studies indicate that murders go up.
How many innocent black people should be killed because you don’t want to stop and frisk?
Is it better that 10 innocent people be stopped and frisked to prevent an innocent person from being killed?
And didn’t the government take away our rights during Covid? They closed churches but allowed liquor stores and Home Depot to remain open and they also allowed huge crowds to protest in the summer of 2020.
golfing eagles
07-26-2023, 08:34 AM
So just a minor violation of the constitution and then only in 88% of the cases.
We're not going to agree on this. Maybe we call it a glass 12% full and 88% empty situation.
My rights are protected by the same government that protects the rights of black people in the city. Those not committing crimes in the city are no less innocent, no less deserving of freedom than I am. If the government can find exceptions for taking away their rights today then there is nothing stopping the government from taking away my rights tomorrow - nothing.
But it’s not a glass, it’s a stacked deck. Those 12% go on to commit heinous crimes and rack up a body count but you want to balance that with the 88% that are inconvenienced for 2 minutes. Sorry, this is not a level playing field. Do you think it is unfair if you are stopped for a broken taillight but the officer finds 10 kg of crack? Would you have your undies in a bunch if they only seized 10 kg from 1200 out of every 10,000 stops?
OrangeBlossomBaby
07-26-2023, 08:36 AM
Most violent crimes are committed by men. So let's just round up all the men, search and frisk, get search warrants to check their houses, take away their guns since clearly men are violent criminals whose purpose in life is to create problems for everyone else.
Also, MOST violent crimes committed in Kentucky, are committed by citizens of Kentucky. So let's just put walls up around Kentucky and let them Darwin themselves out of existence. Then we can take the walls down and more civilized people can move in and take over.
Furthermore, most black violent criminals do -not- have the name Jim-bob. So let's just mandate that all black women must from now on name their sons Jim-bob. That will surely solve the problem.
Bill14564
07-26-2023, 08:50 AM
But it’s not a glass, it’s a stacked deck. Those 12% go on to commit heinous crimes and rack up a body count but you want to balance that with the 88% that are inconvenienced for 2 minutes. Sorry, this is not a level playing field. Do you think it is unfair if you are stopped for a broken taillight but the officer finds 10 kg of crack? Would you have your undies in a bunch if they only seized 10 kg from 1200 out of every 10,000 stops?
If in those 10,000 stops for broken taillights it was found that 8,800 times there was no broken taillight then absolutely I would consider that unfair and would argue against it.
If the error rate of "acting suspiciously" is 88% then someone needs retraining on how to detect suspicious activity. I don't know what an acceptable error rate is but it ain't 88%!
Your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless until it is YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. Perspectives change significantly when it is the observer who is "inconvenienced."
justjim
07-26-2023, 08:56 AM
Growing up in NYC, I recall the foot patrol police. We would see the same officer after school each day. He was hurt in the line of duty and many of us (schoolkids) sent cards and even visited him when he was in rehab. School did not make us, parents didn't force us. He was just our cop friend. How times have changed.
I grew up in a small town. “Where they take care of their own”. A cop would take a drunk home. No DUI that cost $5,000 and your license. If a neighborhood kid got out of line his father would take care of the situation. Every boy had a pocket knife and took it to school but you would fight with your fist not with a knife or gun. Oh, all boys had BB guns and there were less sparrows around to crap on Dad’s car. There was much more that went on in my small town but no need to say more to make a point. Yep, those were the good ol’ days!
golfing eagles
07-26-2023, 09:03 AM
If in those 10,000 stops for broken taillights it was found that 8,800 times there was no broken taillight then absolutely I would consider that unfair and would argue against it.
If the error rate of "acting suspiciously" is 88% then someone needs retraining on how to detect suspicious activity. I don't know what an acceptable error rate is but it ain't 88%!
Your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless until it is YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. Perspectives change significantly when it is the observer who is "inconvenienced."
If they stopped me every day for just walking down the street and that saved even a single life, then I’d have no objections. I’d even buy the officers a donut and a cup of coffee. If I lived in a crime ridden white neighborhood and they stopped me just for being white, I’d thank them for their service. It’s only whiny grievance race mongers and bicoastal elitist eggheads supported by the biased media that drives this ridiculous narrative. You can’t decrease crime without targeting the criminals
Something tells me that there would be less objections if they targeted Wall Street investment bankers in 3 piece suits to search for cocaine
golfing eagles
07-26-2023, 09:04 AM
Most violent crimes are committed by men. So let's just round up all the men, search and frisk, get search warrants to check their houses, take away their guns since clearly men are violent criminals whose purpose in life is to create problems for everyone else.
Also, MOST violent crimes committed in Kentucky, are committed by citizens of Kentucky. So let's just put walls up around Kentucky and let them Darwin themselves out of existence. Then we can take the walls down and more civilized people can move in and take over.
Furthermore, most black violent criminals do -not- have the name Jim-bob. So let's just mandate that all black women must from now on name their sons Jim-bob. That will surely solve the problem.
That’s so ridiculous it doesn’t rate a reply
Bill14564
07-26-2023, 09:17 AM
If they stopped me every day for just walking down the street and that saved even a single life, then I’d have no objections. I’d even buy the officers a donut and a cup of coffee. If I lived in a crime ridden white neighborhood and they stopped me just for being white, I’d thank them for their service. It’s only whiny grievance race mongers and bicoastal elitist eggheads supported by the biased media that drives this ridiculous narrative. You can’t decrease crime without targeting the criminals
Something tells me that there would be less objections if they targeted Wall Street investment bankers in 3 piece suits to search for cocaine
Again, your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless UNTIL IT ACTUALLY IS YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. It is so, so easy to say, "if I were in that position," when you know full d*** well you AREN'T, AND LIKELY NEVER WILL BE, in that position. (If you are the exception, fine, but we will never know)
Target criminals all you like. Not every single brown person in the city is or was a criminal yet they are who were targeted by stop and frisk.
golfing eagles
07-26-2023, 09:39 AM
Again, your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless UNTIL IT ACTUALLY IS YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. It is so, so easy to say, "if I were in that position," when you know full d*** well you AREN'T, AND LIKELY NEVER WILL BE, in that position. (If you are the exception, fine, but we will never know)
Target criminals all you like. Not every single brown person in the city is or was a criminal yet they are who were targeted by stop and frisk.
And again I say SO WHAT. Much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone’s feelings because they felt targeted. Don’t want to be targeted? Start obeying the law.
jimbomaybe
07-26-2023, 09:57 AM
Again, your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless UNTIL IT ACTUALLY IS YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. It is so, so easy to say, "if I were in that position," when you know full d*** well you AREN'T, AND LIKELY NEVER WILL BE, in that position. (If you are the exception, fine, but we will never know)
Target criminals all you like. Not every single brown person in the city is or was a criminal yet they are who were targeted by stop and frisk.
There are now many elected and appointed officials who share your concerns and have redefined how the police operate these changes that have no bearing on ones Constitutional rights but discourage and curtail the street cops curiosity having resulted in making large section of many cities affected unlivable and other sections unsafe , this is evident by the families and businesses leaving those jurisdictions, just what probable cause is for a street stop depends on many factors and are so determined by the courts, When NY started "stop and frisk" I did not research it but from little I heard I did not think it would stand a court challenge, from what I know of "probable cause", current changes are not helping anyone but causing more problems
Bill14564
07-26-2023, 10:01 AM
And again I say SO WHAT. Much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone’s feelings because they felt targeted. Don’t want to be targeted? Start obeying the law.
Do you read what you write? You don't care whether they obey the law. You don't care whether there are taillights are actually broken if stopping everyone finds some drugs. By your own words you don't care that 88% of the people you stop are innocent / have done nothing wrong / are not breaking the law, you want to stop them anyway because it is "much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone's feelings.."
I feel I completely understand what your position is. I don't share it and I doubt I ever will.
Bill14564
07-26-2023, 10:09 AM
There are now many elected and appointed officials who share your concerns and have redefined how the police operate these changes that have no bearing on ones Constitutional rights but discourage and curtail the street cops curiosity having resulted in making large section of many cities affected unlivable and other sections unsafe , this is evident by the families and businesses leaving those jurisdictions, just what probable cause is for a street stop depends on many factors and are so determined by the courts, When NY started "stop and frisk" I did not research it but from little I heard I did not think it would stand a court challenge, from what I know of "probable cause", current changes are not helping anyone but causing more problems
Unfortunately, the pendulum has always swung too far in this country.
Too much crime? Toughen up policing.
Tough policing results in abuses? Prosecute the police.
Prosecute the police for tough policing? Work slowdowns by the police.
Less policing? Crime increases.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
What we need are ways to get tough on crime that don't result in high levels of collateral damage. And, we need the community to recognize that the police are trying to make a difference without harming the non-criminals. Today we can't have those nice things.
Cybersprings
07-26-2023, 12:20 PM
I have to agree with the folks that I ususally spend my time disagreeing with. Just like I don't think that law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights infringed because of the horrible behavior of criminals, I do not believe that law abiding citizens should have their 4th amendment rights violated because of the horrible behavior of criminal. All we have to do is start prosecuting the criminals that are apprehended. If we prosecute shoplifting and all of the other smaller crimes instead of ignoring them, I think you will be amazed at how much all crime will go down. Criminals commit crimes. Prosecute them instead of excusing them and things will get better.
Whitley
07-26-2023, 12:28 PM
Unfortunately, the pendulum has always swung too far in this country.
Too much crime? Toughen up policing.
Tough policing results in abuses? Prosecute the police.
Prosecute the police for tough policing? Work slowdowns by the police.
Less policing? Crime increases.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
What we need are ways to get tough on crime that don't result in high levels of collateral damage. And, we need the community to recognize that the police are trying to make a difference without harming the non-criminals. Today we can't have those nice things.
Start prosecuting accused criminals.
golfing eagles
07-26-2023, 12:36 PM
Do you read what you write? You don't care whether they obey the law. You don't care whether there are taillights are actually broken if stopping everyone finds some drugs. By your own words you don't care that 88% of the people you stop are innocent / have done nothing wrong / are not breaking the law, you want to stop them anyway because it is "much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone's feelings.."
I feel I completely understand what your position is. I don't share it and I doubt I ever will.
So you are intransigent and on the wrong side of the issue. That’s okay, I can accept that.
Rainger99
07-31-2023, 08:17 PM
Interesting study (and podcast) on whether the police discriminate.
Proof That Law Enforcement Does Not Discriminate Against Blacks | Power Line (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/proof-that-law-enforcement-does-not-discriminate-against-blacks.php)
Polarlys
08-01-2023, 06:35 AM
Stop & Frisk ??? Let's call it what it really was. Stop and talk to. Then FRISK if this momentary interview seemed / felt suspicious. No self respecting cop would even consider frisking every person stopped. The local street patrol officer knew his neighborhood and could spot the evil doers and suspicious persons in a heartbeat. A quick sudden interview will most often trip up those with nefarious intentions and lead to further inquiry and then and only then to the dreaded bad word " The Frisk". Stopping this purposeful practice surely led us down this rabbit hole we're poking around in now and sadly we'll never get a do over. So we're stuck with what we got
Whitley
08-01-2023, 07:32 AM
I have to agree with the folks that I ususally spend my time disagreeing with. Just like I don't think that law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights infringed because of the horrible behavior of criminals, I do not believe that law abiding citizens should have their 4th amendment rights violated because of the horrible behavior of criminal. All we have to do is start prosecuting the criminals that are apprehended. If we prosecute shoplifting and all of the other smaller crimes instead of ignoring them, I think you will be amazed at how much all crime will go down. Criminals commit crimes. Prosecute them instead of excusing them and things will get better.
I know, right. I too have to agree with people who report me and call me names. Wait, let us say that THEY agree with US. Maybe that will feel a bit better
Two Bills
08-01-2023, 09:03 AM
Start prosecuting accused criminals.
A few years of Sharia law could work!:icon_wink:
Byte1
08-01-2023, 03:14 PM
So a police officer sees something/someone that appears suspicious to him and stops him/her for a moment to talk to them (and get a better idea if his "gut" feeling is warranted). For his own safety, he does a "Frisk" NOT a search. In my opinion, that's reasonable.
How many folks on here travel via airports and have to walk through an Xray machine? How many put their belongings on a belt, including their shoes so that they can be "searched" prior to flying? Some would say that this is voluntary, since they do not have to fly. Really? Is walking down the street not voluntary?
How about walking into a hospital where you must walk through a metal detector? How about federal buildings? Are these searches violations of the 4th Amendment?
How about random traffic stops, where drivers are stopped by random road blocks and the police are searching for DUI violations? Or drugs?
Do you wish to live safely in your homes or do you want to or need to install special security systems in your home? Would you feel safer in your home if a police officer stopped someone taking a walk at 2am in your neighborhood? Perhaps you would wonder why he didn't stop the dog walker at the same time period?
Profiling is something done all over the world. Profiling has been proven to be a successful tool in law enforcement. Like it or not, it works for the majority of decent folks. As long as there are criminal deviants in society, there will be limitations upon one's liberties and freedoms.
Bill14564
08-01-2023, 03:33 PM
So a police officer sees something/someone that appears suspicious to him and stops him/her for a moment to talk to them (and get a better idea if his "gut" feeling is warranted). For his own safety, he does a "Frisk" NOT a search. In my opinion, that's reasonable.
How many folks on here travel via airports and have to walk through an Xray machine? How many put their belongings on a belt, including their shoes so that they can be "searched" prior to flying? Some would say that this is voluntary, since they do not have to fly. Really? Is walking down the street not voluntary?
How about walking into a hospital where you must walk through a metal detector? How about federal buildings? Are these searches violations of the 4th Amendment?
How about random traffic stops, where drivers are stopped by random road blocks and the police are searching for DUI violations? Or drugs?
Do you wish to live safely in your homes or do you want to or need to install special security systems in your home? Would you feel safer in your home if a police officer stopped someone taking a walk at 2am in your neighborhood? Perhaps you would wonder why he didn't stop the dog walker at the same time period?
Profiling is something done all over the world. Profiling has been proven to be a successful tool in law enforcement. Like it or not, it works for the majority of decent folks. As long as there are criminal deviants in society, there will be limitations upon one's liberties and freedoms.
Be careful, you are dangerously close to arguing for a gun ban with that statement.
As to your other points, entering an airport terminal, a hospital building, or a government building are all situations where you are entering specially protected areas. You don't need to enter those areas, you chose to enter those areas. You aren't simply going about your life, you are accessing some non-public space. While I cringe every time I go through those security checkpoints, I can't argue that they violate my rights.
Walking down the street, just existing in the world, is not accessing some non-public space or entering a specially protected area. Walking down the street is a case of "if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone!" This doesn't mean if I have the same skin tone as the guy you expect might possibly do something wrong sometime in the future. It doesn't mean I look like someone who might be up to no good. If I'm not doing something wrong then leave me alone.
Yes, I am against any and all BS random traffic stops. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone. I don't care what you think, expect, or hope I might be doing, if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.
No, I don't want you to stop the dog walker but I also don't want you to stop me just because you find my insomnia odd. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.
A frisk IS a search by any definition of the word. The only reason to perform a frisk is to determine if someone is carrying something. It IS a search of the person.
golfing eagles
08-01-2023, 03:52 PM
Be careful, you are dangerously close to arguing for a gun ban with that statement.
As to your other points, entering an airport terminal, a hospital building, or a government building are all situations where you are entering specially protected areas. You don't need to enter those areas, you chose to enter those areas. You aren't simply going about your life, you are accessing some non-public space. While I cringe every time I go through those security checkpoints, I can't argue that they violate my rights.
Walking down the street, just existing in the world, is not accessing some non-public space or entering a specially protected area. Walking down the street is a case of "if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone!" This doesn't mean if I have the same skin tone as the guy you expect might possibly do something wrong sometime in the future. It doesn't mean I look like someone who might be up to no good. If I'm not doing something wrong then leave me alone.
Yes, I am against any and all BS random traffic stops. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone. I don't care what you think, expect, or hope I might be doing, if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.
No, I don't want you to stop the dog walker but I also don't want you to stop me just because you find my insomnia odd. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.
A frisk IS a search by any definition of the word. The only reason to perform a frisk is to determine if someone is carrying something. It IS a search of the person.
And once again I say “so what”. Maybe the police just stopped the next mass murderer or serial killer. But let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings
Bill14564
08-01-2023, 04:17 PM
And once again I say “so what”. Maybe the police just stopped the next mass murderer or serial killer. But let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings
Just never going to agree with "so what" as a reaction to someone's Constitutional rights being violated.
Byte1
08-01-2023, 04:18 PM
Be careful, you are dangerously close to arguing for a gun ban with that statement.
As to your other points, entering an airport terminal, a hospital building, or a government building are all situations where you are entering specially protected areas. You don't need to enter those areas, you chose to enter those areas. You aren't simply going about your life, you are accessing some non-public space. While I cringe every time I go through those security checkpoints, I can't argue that they violate my rights.
Walking down the street, just existing in the world, is not accessing some non-public space or entering a specially protected area. Walking down the street is a case of "if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone!" This doesn't mean if I have the same skin tone as the guy you expect might possibly do something wrong sometime in the future. It doesn't mean I look like someone who might be up to no good. If I'm not doing something wrong then leave me alone.
Yes, I am against any and all BS random traffic stops. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone. I don't care what you think, expect, or hope I might be doing, if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.
No, I don't want you to stop the dog walker but I also don't want you to stop me just because you find my insomnia odd. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.
A frisk IS a search by any definition of the word. The only reason to perform a frisk is to determine if someone is carrying something. It IS a search of the person.
Interesting how you bring back the racial issue that was not even referenced in my post. You say, that you do not have to enter the hospital or airport, but you HAVE TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AT 3am? You don't like being stopped if you aren't doing anything wrong? Remember, driving is a privilege NOT a right. You don't like? I doubt anyone likes being interrupted when they are about their business, but that's life and if our courts are not going to prosecute evil then our first line of defense (besides ourselves) is local law enforcement. Don't you just hate standing in line to make a purchase? I have been in countries where folks did not stand in line. Hated it, but it was their country.
Sometimes we have to live with certain curbed or infringed liberties. That's life.
golfing eagles
08-01-2023, 04:22 PM
Just never going to agree with "so what" as a reaction to someone's Constitutional rights being violated.
I've read the constitution of the United States of America. I don't remember the part where a person acting in a suspicious manner is immune from being stopped by law enforcement. What country's constitution are you referring to?????
Bill14564
08-01-2023, 07:38 PM
I've read the constitution of the United States of America. I don't remember the part where a person acting in a suspicious manner is immune from being stopped by law enforcement. What country's constitution are you referring to?????
You are reading it wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the individual, the Constitution limits the rights of the Government. Don't look for "suspicious manner" as something a person can do and still keep his rights, look at it as something the Government can use to take away his rights.
You won't find "suspicious manner" anywhere in the Constitution of the United States - it is not grounds for the Govt to take away anyone's rights.
In particular, you should be looking at the 4th Amendment. That amendment mentions probable cause, not suspicious manner. And while it doesn't characterize "unreasonable," I can't believe a policy with an 88% error rate could ever be acceptable.
As for the rest, I have no desire to rehash the last 106 posts. Post #93 seems to sum things up pretty well.
Rainger99
08-01-2023, 08:23 PM
You are reading it wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the individual, the Constitution limits the rights of the Government. Don't look for "suspicious manner" as something a person can do and still keep his rights, look at it as something the Government can use to take away his rights.
You won't find "suspicious manner" anywhere in the Constitution of the United States - it is not grounds for the Govt to take away anyone's rights.
In particular, you should be looking at the 4th Amendment. That amendment mentions probable cause, not suspicious manner. And while it doesn't characterize "unreasonable," I can't believe a policy with an 88% error rate could ever be acceptable.
As for the rest, I have no desire to rehash the last 106 posts. Post #93 seems to sum things up pretty well.
You never answered the original question.
Do fewer police stops increase homicides?
Rainger99
08-01-2023, 08:30 PM
You are reading it wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the individual, the Constitution limits the rights of the Government.
I think you are wrong. It does grant rights to the individual.
This is from archives.gov.
It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion.
Bill14564
08-02-2023, 05:18 AM
I think you are wrong. It does grant rights to the individual.
This is from archives.gov.
It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion.
In the language it uses, the Constitution guarantees rights by restricting Govt.
"Congress shall make no law..."
"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
"No soldier...shall be quartered...without the consent of the Owner..."
"The right of the people to be secure...shall not be violated..."
"No person shall be held to answer...."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution does not say that the Govt is all powerful but here are some rights we will grant to the people.
The Constitution says the rights belong to the people unless stated otherwise. It lists some specific examples of what Govt cannot do but then makes it clear that the list is not complete.
Bill14564
08-02-2023, 05:35 AM
You never answered the original question.
Do fewer police stops increase homicides?
I never argued the point. Post #23 touches on an acknowledgment and post #94 seems to be in agreement.
I have not taken the time to look at the studies and draw a conclusion. I am not against stopping criminals (though I appreciate being allowed to drive 5mph over the limit) but the stops and the actions after have to be legal and not violate the rights of those who were stopped.
golfing eagles
08-02-2023, 06:03 AM
I never argued the point. Post #23 touches on an acknowledgment and post #94 seems to be in agreement.
I have not taken the time to look at the studies and draw a conclusion. I am not against stopping criminals (though I appreciate being allowed to drive 5mph over the limit) but the stops and the actions after have to be legal and not violate the rights of those who were stopped.
What about the rights of the innocent victims of some lowlife that could have been stopped but wasn't because their feelings might be hurt, or they felt "targeted" or "profiled"?????? The framers of our constitution were much more concerned with limiting government power over LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not criminals.
Rights that protect the innocent from incarceration, cruel punishment, Miranda rights----fine. Preventing the police from using their professional instincts to INVESTIGATE a particular situation---not so much.
There was a news show with a segment about casino security officers in Vegas. They asked one of them what he looks for. The answer was "I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it. Some things are just out of place." And this was just protecting the profits of a casino. Shouldn't we allow our professional law enforcement officers the same latitude to save lives. I just can't balance the inconvenience of being stopped and asked a few questions with injury and death from dangerous criminals.
Bill14564
08-02-2023, 06:30 AM
What about the rights of the innocent victims of some lowlife that could have been stopped but wasn't because their feelings might be hurt, or they felt "targeted" or "profiled"?????? The framers of our constitution were much more concerned with limiting government power over LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not criminals.
Rights that protect the innocent from incarceration, cruel punishment, Miranda rights----fine. Preventing the police from using their professional instincts to INVESTIGATE a particular situation---not so much.
There was a news show with a segment about casino security officers in Vegas. They asked one of them what he looks for. The answer was "I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it. Some things are just out of place." And this was just protecting the profits of a casino. Shouldn't we allow our professional law enforcement officers the same latitude to save lives. I just can't balance the inconvenience of being stopped and asked a few questions with injury and death from dangerous criminals.
When those professional instincts are wrong 88% of the time then those instincts should not be used as justification for anything. Also, see post #93.
golfing eagles
08-02-2023, 06:44 AM
When those professional instincts are wrong 88% of the time then those instincts should not be used as justification for anything. Also, see post #93.
Again, SO WHAT.
I don't care if 99% of the stops yield nothing---that 1% will probably prevent a violent crime.
And that's what some people don't get----the balance is serious injury or death versus "Wah, wah, wah, the police only stopped me because I'm a purple Norwegian" Get over it.
Whitley
08-02-2023, 07:23 AM
You never answered the original question.
Do fewer police stops increase homicides?
Answer: Yes but at a cost that many find unreasonable (Generally violation of the 4th Amendment)
Rainger99
08-02-2023, 10:46 AM
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?
OrangeBlossomBaby
08-02-2023, 09:33 PM
Correlation does not equal causation. While yes, you can "prove a negative," you can't prove a non-existing thing without a doubt.
In other words -
An increase in homicides can't be - without a doubt - be attributed to fewer police stops. The two might be happening concurrently, but one can't be attributed to the other. In fact, it could be just the opposite: maybe because there are more homicides, the police have less time and fewer resources to do stops. You can't prove that either, without a doubt. But it is evident of the logical fallacy of creating causation based only on correlation.
Byte1
08-03-2023, 04:04 PM
The 4th Amend. says ".....unreasonable searches and seizures..." Maybe you have a different definition of "unreasonable" than I do. I consider a police officer frisking someone because they fit within his/her suspicious nature at the time of night or day and the place that person is in the area to be reasonable. If a young man is on his bike, delivering a pizza at 5pm in a neighborhood, I would not consider that "reasonable." However, if that same person was walking down the street at 3am in the same neighborhood, it might be "reasonable" to stop and question his intentions and identify him in case something untoward happens. In that case, the officer would be prudent in frisking said person for his own safety. That's my opinion. Now, if we deny that right to the police officers, then we would be limiting a police presence and h tying their hands behind their back at to their job when we are hoping that we are safe in our homes. Just because someone abuses a right does not mean that everyone should suffer that does not abuse their rights.
patfla06
08-14-2023, 12:39 PM
This is easy. Giuliani cleaned the city up, DeBlasio turned it back into a city run by like minded mayors. Worst thing that happened was ending stop and frisk
DeBlasio was a disaster.
Who votes for these disasters??
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.