Should Chicago Police Use Stop & Frisk? (Washington, Atlanta: high crime, neighborhood)

[urza216]

Originally Posted by Lorielicious

That is not a strawman fallacy. That is the post hoc fallacy. The strawman fallacy attacks an argument that was never presented. The post hoc fallacy assumes a cause and effect relationship between two events simply because one preceded the other. Attributing decreased gun crime to stop-and-frisk makes as much sense as attributing it to my putting Sriracha on my eggs. But regardless of which fallacy he's employing, he's wrong anyway. For the last decade or so, despite a ramping up of illegal search and seizures, I mean stop-and-frisks, gun crime has remained more or less stagnant. NYPD increased its use enormously, then scaled it back recently after a well-deserved deluge of criticism, and its effect on gun crime all the while? Zilch.

So we have Motions attempting post hoc fallacy here ("Gun crime has gone down after stop-and-frisk was implemented, therefore it caused it) and then bungling it further by getting the facts on which his entire fallacious argument was based wrong. Grade: F-

On the interwebz, it seems that everything illogical is a "strawman". lmao

[Motion]

I'm not necessarily for or against stop-and-frisk. I think it comes down to how it's implemented and what the results are. I like the French approach of having police provide some papper work as to why they stopped a particular person. This would cause the police to be more selective with who they stop instead of just stopping anyone.

I can also see a stop-and-frisk approach as causing more criminals with guns to be more on the edge. This part of keeping criminals on the edge is what those who support stop and frisk say is causing more criminals to keep their guns at home knowing that they could get stopped by an officer.

Here's the results of a study of stop and frisk:

Amid the criticism of stop-and-frisk encounters, three criminologists from George Mason University claimed in a recent academic study that street stops were concentrated on specific streets where crime was occurring.

While the paper did not endorse street stops and noted that they may have “negative consequences for police legitimacy,” it provided empirical evidence to support the police’s assertion that street stops closely tracked criminal occurrences, a point that critics of the practice have often dismissed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/ny...2011.html?_r=0

[Atlanta_BD]

I can definitely understand the concerns of this for black males. I have brothers and a nephew so I would never want them to be subjected unfair searches.

The concern is that "stop-and-frisk" would unfairly target minorities. I will play devil's advocate a second here and ask this:

How is it that implementing stop-and-frisk in Chicago would unfairly target minorities when the crime and violence that we see taking place is committed mostly by black and Hispanic males? No, not all black or Latino males are criminals are many are educated and productive citizens of society just like anyone else. But how do we walk this fine line of avoiding racism when it's black and Latino males committing most of the crimes and murders? What is the solution then?

We often hear it discussed on this board that Chicago is a mostly safe city; that most of the crime occurs in only 25% of Chicago's 77 neighborhoods, with those being poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods mostly on the south side--and unless you live in those areas, you'd never have a reason to go there. So how then is it racist to target men in these areas when the men in these demographics account for most of the crime? Any thoughts?

[NoJiveMan]

Originally Posted by Motion

Many believe it has helped to reduce NYC's gun homicides.

Where do you live Motion?

I grew up in Chicago many, many years ago, and Chicago police did just that, stopped vehicles and searched for no other reason other than curiosity, but back then, it was illegal to do way back when, but police still broke that federal law without impunity. Until people in large numbers began complaining about it. In the 60's and 70's all cops had to do was tell you your vehicle looked suspicious or that they were looking for a vehicle that closely matched the one you were driving.

It is still against federal law to stop anyone without probable cause. I don't know much about the NYC laws, but it sure sounds like they might, could be violating federal laws, but might be able to claim state or city laws supersede federal laws.

[chicagobear]

I think it does reduce crime but also that it violates the Fourth Amendment. Rich people in New York don't think that laws apply to them in the same way that they do to the rest of us and apparently they are right. They want Manhattan (and to a lesser exent Brooklyn) to be safe for the wealthy and this seems to be working. I saw that the Chicago City Treasurer wrote an op-ed in the Tribune supporting stop and frisk, so I think young black males better get ready for "walking while black." Rahm figures he's got to do something if he wants to be president.

[RogersParkGuy]

Originally Posted by Motion

Many believe it has helped to reduce NYC's gun homicides.

Most studies of stop-and-frisk agree it is a colossal waste of time (google it; you'll see).

The vast majority of stop-and-frisk interactions turned up nothing. All stop-and-frisk does is waste police time, criminalize minority males for no good reason, and create the potential for lawsuits.

[chicagobear]

Originally Posted by RogersParkGuy

Most studies of stop-and-frisk agree it is a colossal waste of time (google it; you'll see).

The vast majority of stop-and-frisk interactions turned up nothing. All stop-and-frisk does is waste police time, criminalize minority males for no good reason, and create the potential for lawsuits.

I am against it, but I think it turns up nothing because they decide not to carry a gun because of the risk of being stopped and frisked.

[urza216]

Originally Posted by Atlanta_BD

I can definitely understand the concerns of this for black males. I have brothers and a nephew so I would never want them to be subjected unfair searches.

The concern is that "stop-and-frisk" would unfairly target minorities. I will play devil's advocate a second here and ask this:

How is it that implementing stop-and-frisk in Chicago would unfairly target minorities when the crime and violence that we see taking place is committed mostly by black and Hispanic males? No, not all black or Latino males are criminals are many are educated and productive citizens of society just like anyone else. But how do we walk this fine line of avoiding racism when it's black and Latino males committing most of the crimes and murders? What is the solution then?

We often hear it discussed on this board that Chicago is a mostly safe city; that most of the crime occurs in only 25% of Chicago's 77 neighborhoods, with those being poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods mostly on the south side--and unless you live in those areas, you'd never have a reason to go there. So how then is it racist to target men in these areas when the men in these demographics account for most of the crime? Any thoughts?

Hold on.. Police are stopping and frisking random people for no reason like some kind of totalitarian state. Police are stopping and searching people for the crime of walking down the street. And that's the ONLY concern? Are you kidding me? That is your ONLY concern?? Police are supposed to protect the public not treat everyone like a potenional criminal. And yes, unless they are ONLY targeting minorities then this policy makes EVERYONE a potential criminal. Even if they leave you alone, they still looked you up and down, seized you up and decided not to mess with you. This policy turns the city into the public verses the police. Meanwhile, apparently, this is all a-okay as long as you can justify racial profiling. What kind of American are you?

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by urza216

Hold on.. Police are stopping and frisking random people for no reason like some kind of totalitarian state. Police are stopping and seatching people for the crime of walking down the street. And that's the ONLY concern? Are you kidding me? That is your ONLY concern?? Police are supposed to protect the public not treat everyone like a potenional criminal. And yes, unless they are ONLY targeting minorities then this policy makes EVERYONE a potential criminal.

I am not for or against stop and frisk. But I'm pointing out the sentiment shared by others that stop and frisk would only be used to racially profile black males. So my question is, how is it racial profiling when while blacks only make up 33% of the city's population, but nearly 80% of the homicides are black-on-black?

If most of the crime is concentrated in black neighborhoods and black males make up most of those committing crimes, how is it racial profiling to go after those neighborhoods when they are the problem areas?

[urza216]

Originally Posted by RogersParkGuy

Most studies of stop-and-frisk agree it is a colossal waste of time (google it; you'll see).

The vast majority of stop-and-frisk interactions turned up nothing. All stop-and-frisk does is waste police time, criminalize minority males for no good reason, and create the potential for lawsuits.

Again with this. If police have the power to stop and frisk then the entire city has been criminalized. Really. Actually use your mind for one second and think about it.

Just becuse you have faith that your white skin will keep you from being frisked doesn't mean it actually will.. The police can frisk you for any reason at all and don't even have to give you or anyone else a reason. Why so positive that they would never ever do it to you just because you're gloriously white??