[Freethinkin'Man]

We all know by now that within the past several days, headlines emerged containing information about how presidential candidate/former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg defended his mayoral administration's use of stop and frisk, even though it overwhelmingly focused on stopping and frisking young men from minority communities. Bloomberg said in 2015 at a meeting in Aspen that 95% of “murderers and murder victims” are minorities: “You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops,” he said. “They are male, minorities, 16 to 25.”

Those of us here who know unpleasant, non-PC statistics know that this is oftentimes true in many American localities. Annually released FBI statistics on crime portray similar scenarios.

As we know, liberals/progressives have been outraged, with some vowing not to vote for him even if he is chosen by the DNC to face President Trump, and many saying that it would be highly unethical to vote for Bloomberg if one has for years railed against President Trump, who is also seen as a racist by the left.

But what I noticed are two things.

1. Not a single article/headline I saw from media criticizing Bloomberg's statements debunked the numbers he provided. Bloomberg may not have had the absolutely most accurate statistics when he spoke in 2015, but as I wrote, crime statistics bear out what he wrote.
2. The stop and frisk tactic did involve stopping young people who were innocent and who had committed no crimes. But many, MANY were in illegal possession of weapons and were arrested. In full disclosure, I'll have to double-check this, but I have read that 70,000 people who were stopped and frisked were arrested and taken off the streets - not to mention a dramatic drop in crime rates from 2003 to the present day (stop and frisk started in 2003).

I will be honest. This is not something that would have impacted me. I am not a black/Hispanic person; I did not live nor ever socialize in neighborhoods were the local police would have stopped and frisked. But if the ultimate result was a contribution to far lower crime rates and the removal of thousands of people from the streets - people who were either in possession of guns or knives or what not - wouldn't this be a good thing?

I see liberals and leftists and progressives and even some people from religious circles condemning Bloomberg for this because this makes him even more racist and bigoted than Trump. They call this an affront to the dignity of people. They say this devastated communities of people of color.

But if the overwhelming majority of those stopped and frisked were people of color who lived in communities of color, doesn't this mean that if those who were arrested for illegal firearms/drug possession had simply been left alone by the NYPD, that they would very well have engaged in crimes in their... neighborhoods of color? Those firearms, illegally obtained, owned, and carried (getting a carry permit in NYC is essentially impossible; Trump has one because he's, well, Trump) would have been used in crimes. Drugs would have been sold, almost certainly harming if not ruining others' lives.

I want to know - if this policy, even if it did constitute racial profiling, ultimately played a major role in a dramatic reduction of violent crime in New York City while removing thousands of young people from the streets because they were illegally bearing firearms/drugs/etc., how does this "devastate" communities of color? Doesn't this actually help make those communities because it takes criminals off the streets and make those streets safer?

What is it exactly that liberals/leftists/progressives want, all the more they rely on the state to solve problems? If they want safe communities and police which does its job, cops and their bosses who have them implement tough measures are called racist. If they want police to stay away because police are pigs who deliberately murder people of color, crime goes up (this has happened since about 2014).

Until leftists have the courage to examine politically inconvenient facts such as those Bloomberg stated in 2015 and which FBI crime reports repeat year after year after year, there will be no solutions, only moral grandstanding.

Oh, and of course, Trump 2020. Bloomberg as POTUS would be a disaster, with or without Hillary as VP.

 

[Ghost863]

wouldn't this be a good thing?

Absolutely not. It is unconstitutional and every case where this occurred should be thrown out or the convictions reversed.

If you are willing to let one constitutional right be infringed upon, how many others are you willing to give up?

Remember Benjamin Franklin said "Those that would give up Liberty for a little security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security."

 

[ManyFeathers]

What is it exactly that liberals/leftists/progressives want,

This is what they want!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-bail-reform-law-nyc-subway-thief-thanks-democrats-139th-arrest

A New York City man who’s now been arrested 139 times thanked Democrats for guaranteeing his immediate release despite repeatedly swiping hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting subway commuters since the state’s new bail reform law went into effect Jan. 1.

They want to do away with ICE, have sanctuary cities for illegals and to let criminals roam the streets with guns

They want to take guns away from legal, law abiding citizens so the criminal element has more opportunity to victimize others

 

[HomeDefense]

Absolutely not. It is unconstitutional and every case where this occurred should be thrown out or the convictions reversed.

If you are willing to let one constitutional right be infringed upon, how many others are you willing to give up?

Remember Benjamin Franklin said "Those that would give up Liberty for a little security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security."

If you are referring to stop and frisk, I don't think that's accurate. Stop and frisk has been upheld by the courts as long as there is probable cause. The police cannot randomly stop people and frisk people. It has to be done in a manner that does not violate the Constitution.

Stop and frisk

Hillary lied about this during the 2016 debates. When Trump raised it as a way to reduce crime, Hillary claimed the Supreme Court ruled against stop and frisk and it was no longer legal. The truth was that the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the Ohio law because it did not require probable cause. That had no legal bearing on the rest of the country.

FYI. Rudy Giuliani started stop and frisk in New York City. According to a New York cop I know, it dramatically reduced crime. Bloomberg continued the policy. It was still in place when Bill "the commie" de Blasio took office. He stopped the practice because it offended criminals who vote Democrat.

If you are referring to confiscating all guns from a certain class of law-abiding people, that would indeed be unconstitutional.

I'm no fan of Bloomberg, but his statement was accurate. If all guns were confiscated from "inner city" young male minorities, it would likely reduce the number of murders using guns by 95%. This one category of criminals makes all gun owners look bad. That would not be constitutional, but it would eliminate the overwhelming majority of shootings.

 

[ActionJackson]

This is what they want!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-bail-reform-law-nyc-subway-thief-thanks-democrats-139th-arrest




They want to do away with ICE, have sanctuary cities for illegals and to let criminals roam the streets with guns

They want to take guns away from legal, law abiding citizens so the criminal element has more opportunity to victimize others

Anyone still living in any "Inner City, USA" shouldn't complain when they get mugged or assaulted or stolen from. If they haven't learned by now the dangers of the inner city then they're either dumb or stupid or, perhaps, imbecilic. The DummyCrats are going to make certain that inner cities aren't safe so NOW's the time to get out while you can.

I don't mean to insult good Americans who are stuck in the inner city for reasons beyond their control but the majority of city dwellers make a conscious choice to remain there. Those are the folks I'm talking about.

 

[Mr. Sockpuppet]

Absolutely not. It is unconstitutional and every case where this occurred should be thrown out or the convictions reversed.

If you are willing to let one constitutional right be infringed upon, how many others are you willing to give up?

Remember Benjamin Franklin said "Those that would give up Liberty for a little security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security."

By the way, it is "Stop, Question, and Frisk." Most choose to forget the middle word in that phrase.

Now, the law as it stands currently:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is a landmark SCOTUS decision in which the Court ruled that the 4A prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when LE stops and frisks without probable cause to arrest, if a LEO has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." As such, it is only a stop, question, and frisk for illegal, potentially offensive weapons.

Can it be abused or misused? Yes. Has it been abused or misused? Probably.

Is it necessary? Unfortunately, yes.

 

[PeterEnergy]

Bloomberg said in 2015 at a meeting in Aspen that 95% of “murderers and murder victims” are minorities: “You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops,” he said. “They are male, minorities, 16 to 25.”

But what I noticed are two things.

1. Not a single article/headline I saw from media criticizing Bloomberg's statements debunked the numbers he provided. B

2. The stop and frisk tactic did involve stopping young people who were innocent and who had committed no crimes. But many, MANY were in illegal possession of weapons and were arrested.

Opposing this is insane. Political Correctness asserts the proposition that it is entirely possible to hold a turd by the clean end. Profiling is a prudent use of resources. Treating every demographic group equally when 95% of the problem is within 1 demographic group is absurd. Not all things are equal.

 

[Ghost863]

If you are referring to stop and frisk, I don't think that's accurate. Stop and frisk has been upheld by the courts as long as there is probable cause. The police cannot randomly stop people and frisk people. It has to be done in a manner that does not violate the Constitution.

Stop and frisk

Hillary lied about this during the 2016 debates. When Trump raised it as a way to reduce crime, Hillary claimed the Supreme Court ruled against stop and frisk and it was no longer legal. The truth was that the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the Ohio law because it did not require probable cause. That had no legal bearing on the rest of the country.

FYI. Rudy Giuliani started stop and frisk in New York City. According to a New York cop I know, it dramatically reduced crime. Bloomberg continued the policy. It was still in place when Bill "the commie" de Blasio took office. He stopped the practice because it offended criminals who vote Democrat.

If you are referring to confiscating all guns from a certain class of law-abiding people, that would indeed be unconstitutional.

I'm no fan of Bloomberg, but his statement was accurate. If all guns were confiscated from "inner city" young male minorities, it would likely reduce the number of murders using guns by 95%. This one category of criminals makes all gun owners look bad. That would not be constitutional, but it would eliminate the overwhelming majority of shootings.

being a black male between the ages of 16 to 25 is not probable cause and that is why it is unconstitutional. Because there is no probable clause it denies them their 4th amendment right.

 

[Ghost863]

By the way, it is "Stop, Question, and Frisk." Most choose to forget the middle word in that phrase.

Now, the law as it stands currently:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is a landmark SCOTUS decision in which the Court ruled that the 4A prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when LE stops and frisks without probable cause to arrest, if a LEO has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." As such, it is only a stop, question, and frisk for illegal, potentially offensive weapons.

Can it be abused or misused? Yes. Has it been abused or misused? Probably.

Is it necessary? Unfortunately, yes.

so being a black youth gives them reasonable suspicion? I'm sorry but this is one case the supreme court got it wrong. That was the same argument that Arizona got when they wanted to stop every single Latin American and ask for proof of their citizenship. It is racial profiling at it's worst and should never be allowed. Just look at the Loony Left wanting to portray all white males as white supremacist. Do you think that should be allowed as well?

 

[PeterEnergy]

being a black male between the ages of 16 to 25 is not probable cause and that is why it is unconstitutional.

Not an argument.

Like the fallacious "not all Muslims are terrorists" argument, while most black male between the ages of 16 to 25 may not be criminals, most criminals are. In other words, the probability certainly applies when using the proper denominator.

 

[PeterEnergy]

... It is racial profiling at it's worst and should never be allowed ...

This is nonsensical and inherently contradictory. Funny that some scientists claim race is not real but a social construct. If so, then racial profiling is an impossibility. :upsidedown:

Of course it is racial profiling and should be allowed because science, math, statistics, probability.

Going back to the nuts that say race does not exist; funny how racial profiling is OK grounds for admitting students into prestigious colleges - approved by the Supreme Court. Just ask Pochahantas. :thumb:

 

[Ghost863]

This is nonsensical and inherently contradictory. Funny that some scientists claim race is not real but a social construct. If so, then racial profiling is an impossibility. :upsidedown:

Of course it is racial profiling and should be allowed because science, math, statistics, probability.

Going back to the nuts that say race does not exist; funny how racial profiling is OK grounds for admitting students into prestigious colleges - approved by the Supreme Court. Just ask Pochahantas. :thumb:

if racial profiling should be permitted then you and I should go to prison for the rest of our lives never to be released because we are white supremacist and therefore neo nazi skinheads just because we were born Caucasian. See how that works?

 

[ActionJackson]

Not an argument.

Like the fallacious "not all Muslims are terrorists" argument, while most black male between the ages of 16 to 25 may not be criminals, most criminals are. In other words, the probability certainly applies when using the proper denominator.

True! Actual statistics don't lie. I'm a bit torn on the issue. Although I do believe that young, black males in the inner city are more likely to commit violent crime than anyone else I'm still opposed to frisking people unless there is really good cause to do so. I can picture a day when the far left takes control of government and starts a "stop and frisk" program aimed at white, conservative types. Once the door is open to such policies then anything goes.

On the other hand ... I am on high alert any time I find myself in the "bad part of town." I hope I never have to visit an inner city for the rest of my life.

 

[HomeDefense]

By the way, it is "Stop, Question, and Frisk." Most choose to forget the middle word in that phrase.

Now, the law as it stands currently:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is a landmark SCOTUS decision in which the Court ruled that the 4A prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when LE stops and frisks without probable cause to arrest, if a LEO has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." As such, it is only a stop, question, and frisk for illegal, potentially offensive weapons.

Can it be abused or misused? Yes. Has it been abused or misused? Probably.

Is it necessary? Unfortunately, yes.

The way I read that, any member of a violent gang or other known criminal is fair game, as it should be.

 

[HomeDefense]

This is nonsensical and inherently contradictory. Funny that some scientists claim race is not real but a social construct. If so, then racial profiling is an impossibility. :upsidedown:

Of course it is racial profiling and should be allowed because science, math, statistics, probability.

Going back to the nuts that say race does not exist; funny how racial profiling is OK grounds for admitting students into prestigious colleges - approved by the Supreme Court. Just ask Pochahantas. :thumb:

Anything the libs don't agree with that has anything to do with minorities is racist. That word has been so overused it's becoming meaningless.

If the overwhelming majority of criminal gang members are black, it's not racist to go after criminal gang members. In this case, race is simply a statistic.

 

[Ghost863]

True! Actual statistics don't lie. I'm a bit torn on the issue. Although I do believe that young, black males in the inner city are more likely to commit violent crime than anyone else I'm still opposed to frisking people unless there is really good cause to do so. I can picture a day when the far left takes control of government and starts a "stop and frisk" program aimed at white, conservative types. Once the door is open to such policies then anything goes.

On the other hand ... I am on high alert any time I find myself in the "bad part of town." I hope I never have to visit an inner city for the rest of my life.

^^^^^^^ This^^^^^ This is exactly what the Germans did in Germany before and during WWII. Anyone who subscribes to these Gestapo Tactics cannot really claim to be a pro constitutionalist. These ideas that a person can be stopped and frisked without probable cause borders on being communist and should never be allowed. If a person fits the description of a criminal then by all means stop and question them but just because you are of a certain age and skin color, this is a very dangerous path that so many are willing to travel down. Remember as I pointed out above what Franklin said, Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

 

[Mr. Sockpuppet]

so being a black youth gives them reasonable suspicion? I'm sorry but this is one case the supreme court got it wrong. That was the same argument that Arizona got when they wanted to stop every single Latin American and ask for proof of their citizenship. It is racial profiling at it's worst and should never be allowed. Just look at the Loony Left wanting to portray all white males as white supremacist. Do you think that should be allowed as well?

I never stated any such thing.

Though if I observed anyone...regardless of color...standing in a dark alley at 2am, it would certainly peak my interest.

I also would be suspicious if a I saw a black guy in a predominantly white neighborhood during off hours, just the same if I saw a white guy in a predominantly black neighborhood during off hours.

 

[Ghost863]

I never stated any such thing.

Though if I observed anyone...regardless of color...standing in a dark alley at 2am, it would certainly peak my interest.

I also would be suspicious if a I saw a black guy in a predominantly white neighborhood during off hours, just the same if I saw a white guy in a predominantly black neighborhood during off hours.

those are reasonable suspicions but does it constitute probable cause as meant by the 4A (The Original Intent)?

 

[Ghost863]

Anything the libs don't agree with that has anything to do with minorities is racist. That word has been so overused it's becoming meaningless.

If the overwhelming majority of criminal gang members are black, it's not racist to go after criminal gang members. In this case, race is simply a statistic.

so now I'm a liberal for defending the constitution. I guess that would make all of those that totally agree with the actions and words of Bloomberg Stopping and Frisking you Black males between the age of 16 and 25 Nazi dictators.

 

[PeterEnergy]

In The Name of Perverted Equality

if racial profiling should be permitted then you and I should go to prison for the rest of our lives never to be released because we are white supremacist and therefore neo nazi skinheads just because we were born Caucasian. See how that works?

Just because? No. There is a difference between racist and racial. The race baiters have us so conditioned that we confuse the 2 while Blacks use the term ****** all the time. Is that a racist term? How come Blacks use the term?

Regarding the race baiters having us so conditioned, guess what? Being a white supremacist or neo nazi skinhead is NOT against the law.

I noticed your objection ignored the equally "offensive" (if you were not so indoctrinated) agism and sexism. 16-25 year olds and males. Guess what? It's also not against the law to be young and male. So, you are confusing things that are <violent and criminal> AS MORALLY EQUIVALENT to things that are <NOT violent or criminal>.

Guess what? 16-25 year olds and males who are Black do not go to prison under stop, question and frisk just because they are part of this demographic. There is still the requirement of having to actually commit a crime, like violating parole in having a stolen and hidden weapon, etc. Crimes revealed by stop, question and frisk.

IMO, when criminal activity reaches a certain level, science can be used to reduce it, like profiling. Muslims tend to engage in terrorist activity. Young Black Males tend to engage in personal violent crime. Ignoring the science of crime, the statistics of reality is stupid.

Statistics show 80% of lifetime medical expenses are incurred in the last 6 months of life. Multicultural political correctness supposes we ought to spend as much money on the young and healthy as the old and dying! It's just as stupid to spend our crime stopping activity equally among all demographic groups. Guess what? There aren't too many wheelchair bound, 80 year old women who commit B&E.