[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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]

[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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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...)

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Oh, THOSE numbers you believe, but the numbers I cited are "inflated"? SMH...

FBI crime statistics
US Census Bureau data

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

FBI crime statistics
US Census Bureau data

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

FBI crime statistics
US Census Bureau data

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by Whitley

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.