What would Rudy tell him?

So what tactics? Stop and Frisk?

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective?

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk?

What did Pres. Trump say last night about how he was gonna help Chicago? Grants to hire more police like Clinton did, an occupying army, or was he just going to browbeat the criminals into stopping?

Good article. So it was a variety of things that were done. Many of them started before Rudy was mayor.

which is why he calls Rudy, since Rudy was there and knows what worked and what didn't. also as you noticed Rudy took the groundwork that was laid out and organized it into a functioning system.

He could call Rudy but he could call a lot of other mayors since the crime rate went down all across the country (and othe countries also). I'm sure that many of the things that those cities did where and are being tried in Chicago. I think Chicago is an aberration.

You don't think the crime rate went down in NYC, any more than it did anywhere else? Are you incapable of admitting that not all Republicans are evil and stupid? Are you serious? The man saved thousands of lives, and most of the lives saved, were black. He also oversaw the prosecution and imprisonment of dozens of corrupt cops.

"I think Chicago is an aberration"

How can we know that what worked in NYC won't work in Chicago, unless we try? And if Chicago is an aberration, what does that say about, for example, the community organizers there?

"Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating"

DiBlasio stopped doing it. I don't know that anyone ruled it was unconstitutional. What I do know (because I can accept facts regardless of whether or not they support my agenda) is that it worked.

"that lack of conservative empathy keeps rearing its ugly head"

Empathy? For gang bangers who made New York uninhabitable? I'll save my empathy for the innocent people trying to live there.

"it (liberalism) has worked in other places."

In poor, inner cities? In all seriousness, where? Hartford? Bridgeport? New Haven? Baltimore? Philadelphia? Chicago may be an outlier in terms of absolute numbers, it's not all by itself in terms of being an example of urban failure.

"Wow, almost every thread with you comes back to blacks"

OK. So when I say it's bad that blacks are getting murdered in Chicago, that makes me a racist in your eyes. Got it. That's just brilliant Paul.

Any answers to the questions I had at the end of my earlier response?

The reason race was brought into this is because we were talking about the violence in Chicago, where the majority of the victims are black.

you do know its not racist to actually try and have an adult discussion and have the races of people brought into the discussion.


"Over the Labor Day weekend, Chicago hit that tragic number: 500 homicides.

Nearly all of those killed were black men, shot to death in alleys and on street corners by other black men. It's time to have a talk with African-Americans."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...07-column.html

Can you re-state the questions? Not sure what you are referring to, but I don't dodge.

"You don't seem to understand how being stopped repeatedly for no reason other than being black could get some pissed off."

I absolutely understand it. But what YOU don't understand, is that it's better to deal with the occasional indignity and be alive, than to be left alone to be murdered.

A judge did deem stop and frisk to be unconstitutional. A judge once also declared slavery to not be unconstitutional. Judges make monumental mistakes. It worked.

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective?

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk?

Assuming you mean these...

So what tactics? Stop and Frisk? yes, I mean anything that Rudy did to help bring the violent crime down.

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective? Crime went way down during his tenure. In your words, "look it up". I took your advice and looked up stop and frisk, and saw that you were right, a judge declared it unconstitutional.

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk? Probably because starting with Pres Clinton, we finally figured it would be a good idea to start locking up violent criminals instead of feeling sorry for them. I'm not a criminologist. Funny, you see no correlation between who was in charge and the results. I presume then, that you don't blame Bush for the economic crash, nor do you credit Obama for the rebound? Or are you selective with such things?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk? Again, in your words, look it up. You didn't spoon feed it to me, I won't to you. Fair or unfair?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk? Don't know. If it didn't, that proves nothing, because crime could still be down because of the people he put away who are still behind bars.

We get it...you are opposed to proactively trying to identify people who are carrying guns in urban areas. Good for you!! Let's just wait for the day when the bad guys all turn themselves in. Until then, we'll keep burying innocent victims.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115820]
"But the people in those neighbor hoods don't want it."

They re-elected Rudy. What does that mean to you?

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]

Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk" is unconstitutional.

Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

nm

Jesus God Almighty.

The reason why you don't try the "least painful" approach (which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop), is that lives are at stake. You don't see that? Seriously? This is not a hypothetical debate Paul. When you are facing a life-or-death situation, you do what it takes to win, you don't risk innocent lives for the sake of political correctness or sensitivity. or being non-invasive. We are WAY past the point of having the luxury of worrying about niceties in Chicago.

Let's sit around and have professors and lawyers write papers, and conduct focus groups to see what the people will tolerate and what they think will be too intrusive. Then let's form a blue-ribbon committee to meet with the community organizers, let's let Al Sharpton weigh in on why it's honkey's fault. And let's wait to get Rahm Emanuel's opinion that he is doing everything that can be done, because Lord knows it can't be that he's an incompetent horses azz.

Bill O'Reilly said earlier this week, that if this were happening in an affluent white neighborhood, it would have been dealt with definitively, before the first week was over. And he was absolutely correct. Sorry I brought up race again, must be my latent racism, not that race is central to this issue.

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]

Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk," per se, as in the Terry decision, is unconstitutional.

Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals - neither you nor I care about them other to stop crime. I'm talking about the people who live there. We can implant a tracking device in every person and that would tell us who was close to every crime. I don't think you would agree to that.

The studies I have read think a # of factors contributed to a lowering of crime. And yes, S&F did contribute. But other things contributed more. Some of the factors had nothing to do with policing.

[QUOTE=detbuch;1115829][Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?i think your last statement is the key - it is tough to isolate the cause in a drop in crime.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115830]"We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals "

Neither am I. But if people are dying in these numbers, and we want to stop that quickly, the law-abiding citizens might have to accept dealing with things that they might not happen to like. If it keeps more of their kids alive, isn't it worth getting frisked? I don't like taking my shoes off at the airport. But I'm happy to do it. It's not being done because the TSA agent is a pervert who has a foot fetish and wants to gawk at my size 13's.

"The studies I have read think a # of factors contributed to a lowering of crime. And yes, S&F did contribute. But other things contributed more. Some of the factors had nothing to do with policing"

Great. As I said, let's round up all the authors of the studies and have a conference to discuss things over some apple martinis and hot toddies, while a few toddlers get shot to death because we're so petrified of offending someone. That sounds like the liberal, enlightened, sophisticated, progressive, nuanced way to approach it. Meanwhile, affluent white people can sleep comfortably in their mansions, because they can afford to live in a place where these gang bangers know to stay out of.

Let's try a jobs program first. I remember State Dept spokesidiot Marie Harf saying that to defeat terrorism, we need to give these people jobs. In her words, I didn't believe what I was hearing, not because it was stupid, but because her solution was too nuanced for my simple-minded brain. So let's try that.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115833]You are voluntarily agreeing to that by buying the plane ticket. Someone walking down the public street doesn't have a choice in being subject to a search.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115835]"Actually you said "which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop"

Correct. Which unlike things I would actually endorse, this would involve no inconvenience to the law abiding. Other than the fact that many would get killed in the ensuing bloodbath. But I guess we want to finish where Margaret Sanger left off.

"You are voluntarily agreeing to that by buying the plane ticket"

That's true. But my point is still valid...I don't like taking my shoes off, but I do it, because I am rational enough to understand why it's being done.

"Someone walking down the public street doesn't have a choice in being subject to a search"

I can't argue with that, Paul. All I can argue is that if I was living there, I'd be willing to trade some comfort for the hope of safety.

yellow was a horrible choice

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115831][QUOTE=detbuch;1115829]Actually, my first statement, which you left out in your reply, is the key: "Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision."

What was supposedly unconstitutional in the case to which you referred is that it targeted a specific race, not that the practice itself is unconstitutional.

As I said, the "broken windows" policy of Giuliani as it is practiced in Detroit cannot be proved to be racist toward minorities since the overwhelming percent of its population is minority. And, after Detroit started using the practice, which includes stop and search, crime went down. You may dispute that the practice is the cause, but you cannot prove it either way. But it is not unconstitutional on the grounds of racial discrimination (unless it targeted Whites) so what's wrong with the policy? If Chicago could do it in a way as not to target blacks, I presume it would be OK. But that would be difficult, if not impossible, since the crime is preponderantly in the Black communities.

yes. it was so profound I should of used a different color so all could see it.

You have a lot of perserverance.