Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And do what exactly? I still have yet to hear anyone come up with a way to fight crime without increasing the police force, especially seeing that there is limited funding.
Increase their presence in the streets, it would be a great deterrent. Once NYC legalizes marijuana that will take a huge chunk out of the crime. It will decrease the incentive for these young guys to become drug dealers. And increase harsher penalties for having illegal guns. 10 years sentences should cool their heels, I don't think 3.5 years is enough. But around my way, I would like to see an increase in police presence. I think they can walk the beat a little more often.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
S&F was designed to reduce gun violence, not overall crime. S&F is not a deterrent for robberies, rapes, assaults, grand larcenies and burglaries and no one can prove that the NYPD's racial application of S&F has deterred gun violence. The mayor and the police commissioner KNOW that the judge didn't say the city should abolish the program, but to mend it. They cannot be that stupid, or are they?
Increase their presence in the streets, it would be a great deterrent. Once NYC legalizes marijuana that will take a huge chunk out of the crime. It will decrease the incentive for these young guys to become drug dealers. And increase harsher penalties for having illegal guns. 10 years sentences should cool their heels, I don't think 3.5 years is enough. But around my way, I would like to see an increase in police presence. I think they can walk the beat a little more often.
That's the whole point. If you want an increased police presence, that costs money, money that the city doesn't have. The people up in arms about Stop and Frisk don't seem to think about that. When you have a smaller budget, you have to be creative and do more with less. Stop and Frisk has been around for years and in fact they're doing exactly what you asked for, which is to flood neighborhoods with high crime. Stop and Frisk allows them to put the criminals on notice that they may be randomly stopped at any time, questioned and searched if they look suspect.
Having police fear doing their jobs at the risk of being sued is not exactly effective policing.
That's the whole point. If you want an increased police presence, that costs money, money that the city doesn't have. The people up in arms about Stop and Frisk don't seem to think about that. When you have a smaller budget, you have to be creative and do more with less. Stop and Frisk has been around for years and in fact they're doing exactly what you asked for, which is to flood neighborhoods with high crime. Stop and Frisk allows them to put the criminals on notice that they may be randomly stopped at any time, questioned and searched if they look suspect.
So why are people being stopped in neighborhoods with less crime?
So why are people being stopped in neighborhoods with less crime?
Because they look suspect. Crimes happen everywhere and they must be fought everywhere. They just may happen less frequently in better neighborhoods, but they still occur and you can't just sit back and wait for them to happen. That's not effective policing. I want to see what the people complaining about this program have to say when crime rates go up, because I still have yet to hear anyone come up with a plan aside from flooding neighborhoods with cops, which is already happening. How do you go further to deter crimes?? No one has the answer to that right? If you're going to complain about the current programs in place, come up with alternative plans. That seems like a fair request. Effective policing involves plans to deter crimes before they begin so as to not over exert limited police resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daloto
S&F was designed to reduce gun violence, not overall crime. S&F is not a deterrent for robberies, rapes, assaults, grand larcenies and burglaries and no one can prove that the NYPD's racial application of S&F has deterred gun violence. The mayor and the police commissioner KNOW that the judge didn't say the city should abolish the program, but to mend it. They cannot be that stupid, or are they?
Yes, and amend the most important parts of it, shredding the effectiveness of what has been a great program at reducing crime. What does it matter why Stop and Frisk was created for? What's important is that it has been an effective tool in reducing crime overall, something that Stop and Frisk opponents refuse to acknowledge. Flooding communities with high crime with cops is already being done but if criminals don't have a need to be on alert, I don't see how that's going to do anything to deter crimes from occurring. Sure, you've got a bunch of cops around, and when they leave, then what?
Cops are going to be too concerned about lawsuits to do their jobs effectively.
That's the whole point. If you want an increased police presence, that costs money, money that the city doesn't have. The people up in arms about Stop and Frisk don't seem to think about that. When you have a smaller budget, you have to be creative and do more with less. Stop and Frisk has been around for years and in fact they're doing exactly what you asked for, which is to flood neighborhoods with high crime. Stop and Frisk allows them to put the criminals on notice that they may be randomly stopped at any time, questioned and searched if they look suspect.
Having police fear doing their jobs at the risk of being sued is not exactly effective policing.
How is the city spending more money by shifting duties? I'd rather see some uniformed officers on patrol than some undercovers playing cowboys and indians. Stop and Frisk to me is lazy police work. Like the judge said, the way it's being done right now is unconstitutional. Anybody can just stop random people all day long. How about investigating where all of the guns are coming from in the first place. Or dismantling the gangs that bring them in. It's not really solving the problem of how they're getting into the city.
Even when I got stopped and frisked, I told the story before. At the time, the only store open in the area that late was in front of a known drug spot and I went to that store to go buy cigarettes. So on the way back I got stopped and frisked. So tell me what makes sense, stopping me and continuing to let the guys sell drugs in front of the store? Obviously I got stopped cause they knew drugs were being sold. Why not walk over to the store and stop and frisk the drug dealer? Smh.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
How is the city spending more money by shifting duties? I'd rather see some uniformed officers on patrol than some undercovers playing cowboys and indians. Stop and Frisk to me is lazy police work. Anybody can just stop random people all day long. How about investigating where all of the guns are coming from in the first place. Or dismantling the gangs that bring them in. It's not really solving the problem of how they're getting into the city.
Even when I got stopped and frisked, I told the story before. At the time, the only store open in the area that late was in front of a known drug spot and I went to that store to go buy cigarettes. So on the way back I got stopped and frisked. So tell me what makes sense, stopping me and continuing to let the guys sell drugs in front of the store? Obviously I got stopped cause they knew drugs were being sold. Why not walk over to the store and stop and frisk the drug dealer? Smh.
You asked for more cops to be on the beat, which means increased patrols, which means more money because detectives are not going to stop going undercover and switch to being uniformed police. Their roles are completely different and they're there for a specific purpose. I'm still waiting to hear your plan that would replace Stop and Frisk, which only appears to be more patrols, so if that's the case then that's what you're asking for. Your answer seems to be put more cops on the beat and then wait for something to occur before taking action, which is certainly not proactive at all in deterring crime. The goal of cops is to stop crime before it occurs to thus exert resources in more important areas. How do you stop the drug dealer without any evidence if you have to wait to gather evidence rather than stopping, questioning and searching him/her?
You seem vehemently opposed to Stop and Frisk because you were stopped and frisked, but then the question is, how do cops go about stopping and frisking individuals if they can't stop them based on suspicion? What criteria do you deem acceptable in order for them do their jobs? The one thing people fail to understand is that cops are trained and are expected to use their experience being in the field to ascertain what is suspicious behavior to them and what isn't. The problem is the public thinks that they've become experts on what cops should and shouldn't be able to deem suspect or suspicious behavior, so long as they aren't the ones that are deemed suspicious.
I was listening to a commentator on this subject the other day and he claimed that communication is key and I disagree. He claimed that if cops went up to suspects and said listen we've been having a wave of robberies in such and such area and we're doing routine stops, that somehow that would make the suspects feel better. The fact of the matter is no one thinks they should be stopped because their rights are paramount over anything else, so how then should the bad guys be stopped if not after a crime has already been done?
Last edited by Somewhere in Time; 08-19-2013 at 03:16 PM..
Reason: Typo
You asked for more cops to be on the beat, which means increased patrols, which means more money because detectives are not going to stop going undercover and switch to being uniformed police. Their roles are completely different and they're there for a specific purpose. I'm still waiting to hear your plan that would replace Stop and Frisk, which only appears to be more patrols, so if that's the case then that's what you're asking for. Your answer seems to be put more cops on the beat and then wait for something to occur before taking action, which is certainly not proactive at all in deterring crime. The goal of cops is to stop crime before it occurs to thus exert resources in more important areas. How do you stop the drug dealer without any evidence if you have to wait to gather evidence rather than stopping, questioning and searching him/her?
You seem vehemently opposed to Stop and Frisk because you were stopped and frisked, but then the question is, how do cops go about stopping and frisking individuals if they can't stop them based on suspicion? What criteria do you deem acceptable in order for them do their jobs? The one thing people fail to understand is that cops are trained and are expected to use their experience being in the field to ascertain what is suspicious behavior to them and what isn't. The problem is the public thinks that they've become experts on what cops should and should be able to deem suspect or suspicious behavior, so long as they aren't the ones that are deemed suspicious.
I was listening to a commentator on this subject the other day and he claimed that communication is key and I disagree. He claimed that if cops went up to suspects and said listen we've been having a wave of robberies in such and such area and we're doing routine stops, that somehow that would make the suspects feel better. The fact of the matter is no one thinks they should be stopped because their rights are paramount over anything else, so how then should the bad guys be stopped if not after a crime has already been done?
I am not entirely opposed to Stop and Frisk I just feel it's not being utilized properly...I'm constantly hearing the stories of innocent citizens who feel like they are being violated. Nothing is perfect but some people are scared of both the cops and the criminals now. I didn't go to school for criminal justice but do we honestly believe that stopping every black/hispanic kid on the street is the most tactful answer? And then, criminals always adapt to the situation. I have read stories now where gangs are getting hip to stop and frisk now. So they don't walk in the street with the gun anymore. What they have now are what are called "community guns," and instead of walking around with it, the gang stashes the gun in a mailbox, or some other hiding spot, and they just go get it when they need it. So now if the cops are looking for guns, they'e going to find less of them on the streets....why is it so hard to go after the root of the problem??? I'd rather them hold monthly gun buy back programs.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I am not entirely opposed to Stop and Frisk I just feel it's not being utilized properly...I'm constantly hearing the stories of innocent citizens who feel like they are being violated. Nothing is perfect but some people are scared of both the cops and the criminals now. I didn't go to school for criminal justice but do we honestly believe that stopping every black/hispanic kid on the street is the most tactful answer? And then, criminals always adapt to the situation. I have read stories now where gangs are getting hip to stop and frisk now. So they don't walk in the street with the gun anymore. What they have now are what are called "community guns," and instead of walking around with it, the gang stashes the gun in a mailbox, or some other hiding spot, and they just go get it when they need it. So now if the cops are looking for guns, they'e going to find less of them on the streets....why is it so hard to go after the root of the problem??? I'd rather them hold monthly gun buy back programs.
Well then explain how it should be better utilized then so that it remains effective? That's what I have yet to hear from anyone here that's opposed to it in some form. How exactly can it be done without people being offended or afraid?
Buy back programs are already in place but people have to actually volunteer to come in. Sure those programs help, but they only get a fraction of the guns off of the streets and furthermore, not all crimes involve guns these days.
The other issue which continues to be overlooked is that the stops are in proportion to the amount of crime that each group does, so yes, Black and Hispanic youths are stopped the most, but these two groups commit the most crime according to the NYPD and are also the two highest groups to be the victims of these crimes, so in reality, Stop and Frisk benefits these two groups the most by providing fewer victims and safer streets.
Well then explain how it should be better utilized then so that it remains effective? That's what I have yet to hear from anyone here that's opposed to it in some form. How exactly can it be done without people being offended or afraid?
Buy back programs are already in place but people have to actually volunteer to come in. Sure those programs help, but they only get a fraction of the guns off of the streets and furthermore, not all crimes involve guns these days.
Majority of the guns seem like they're in the hands of gang members. Put the cops where the gang members are. They'll find all kinds of stuff if they start concentrating on where the gangs are located.
Either way, it's putting a strain on the relationship between the community and the NYPD. Nobody likes being stopped by the police. Look at the father in Brooklyn who had a heart attack the other day when the cops busted in his door. He didn't do anything wrong but he got nervous and died! A lot of people are uncomfortable being randomly stopped by police - even if they did nothing wrong, you can't help people's emotions.
Have you ever been stopped and frisked? Did it feel good to stand on the corner with 4 cops searching you in the middle of the night, and you're praying to God that they're not corrupt and will plant some drugs on you? It's not a good feeling.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
