So it has started

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

"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.But the people in those neighbor hoods don't want it. Frankly, you or I will never be stopped nor hopefully never have to deal with the crime in those areas. Other cities have tried other crime prevention tech. that have worked. I don't know what Chicago has or has not done but why not try the least painful for the people who just want to get up and go to work/school rather than try something those people don't want?

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?

[Jim in CT]

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I don't know what Chicago has or has not done but why not try the least painful for the people who just want to get up and go to work/school rather than try something those people don't want??

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115830]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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. QUOTE]

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.

"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.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115833]

Originally Posted by PaulS

"We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals "

Neither am I. Actually you said "which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop)", 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

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.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115835]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

"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.