(02-16-2020 12:54 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 10:03 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 08:56 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 08:45 PM)450bench Wrote:  They put officers in high crime areas to help reduce crime in those areas. He was right about that, which is a solid strategy.

Call me crazy here, but if those officers were just patroling those high crime neighborhoods and not frisking over 500k people a year with around 90% of those people having nothing on them just maybe this wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe..but..What about that 10% that did have weapons? Those are the criminals that are causing the issues in the communities. I fully understand that what Bloomberg did goes against search and seizure laws..but..Where communities are suffering from these thugs..Is it a valid response? I'm not sure I disagree with what he did. Id be fine with being frisked if my street became safe again from these criminals.

This.

It’s also been shown that the vast majority of the crimes, something like 85% are committed by the same 10% or so. ( Someone’s welcome to look that up, been a while since I did anything with these numbers)

Guess who they’re looking for in these stops? Yes, that 10%.

AND it sends a strong and clear message to the next potential generation of criminals that it’s not as easy as it looks. The money, cars, women etc. Can all be gone, and likely will be, in a flash. One way or another.

Ami a fan or supporter of simply randomly throwing black kids against the wall and basically harassing them? No. That borders on a police state.

Do I think there needs to be proactive rather aggressive action taken to stop schit like the culture of the late 80’s-early 90’s and the killing fields in our inner cities like Richmond was?

Yes.

There is a balance there, it’s up to sensible people to find that balance. Seems like MM may taken it too far, but the counter response, from the idiot mayor now, looks to be returning parts of NYC to David Dinkins level stupid.

Guess Rudy had it about right all along. Who knew?!?

Except for the fact that crime has decreased since stop and frisk decreased and continued to decrease every year, and they weren't finding guns 10% of the time. They were finding guns 0.1% of the time.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-...d-one-gun/

That doesn't border on a police state, that is a police state. That is pissing on people's rights, and you would rightfully lose your damn mind if a police officer wanted to stop and frisk you for no probably cause. Again they have a legal means to do stop and frisk, but it's called a Terry Stop and you have to have reasonable suspicion a crime is or is about to be committed.