Nypd watching chinese man getting beat up

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by bklynkenny

I asked you why you thought something and you replied asking why I wouldn't think that. Seemed like there was some avoidance there.

No I don't think there's anything wrong with "lecturing." Just because I may not agree with somebody doesn't mean it's wrong for them to disagree. I joined this forum to have discussion with both like-minded and not-so-like-minded individuals. I definitely don't expect everybody to have the same thought process as me, but I do expect for people to want to engage in intelligent conversations.

Ok, I can see how that would be a poor analogy. Point is if somebody is guilty of one crime, I wouldn't automatically assume they're guilty of another crime. Let's say I wouldn't think a farebeater is a drug user (unless there were external signs).

Then you would make a very poor policeman or detective. Lots of crime gets solved by catching someone for one crime and then through further questioning more crimes are unveiled. For example, a driver gets pulled over for going too fast (a crime), then a check of his vehicle shows illegal handgun or drugs (a second crime). Further checks of his background might reveal that he has a warrant for murder (a third crime).

None of this would be found if he was just given a citation for speeding and sent on his way. Assuming can be useful sometimes. You should try it.

[beanniebaby7]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Then you would make a very poor policeman or detective. Lots of crime gets solved by catching someone for one crime and then through further questioning more crimes are unveiled. For example, a driver gets pulled over for going too fast (a crime), then a check of his vehicle shows illegal handgun or drugs (a second crime). Further checks of his background might reveal that he has a warrant for murder (a third crime).

None of this would be found if he was just given a citation for speeding and sent on his way. Assuming can be useful sometimes. You should try it.

Good point.

[bklynkenny]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Then you would make a very poor policeman or detective. Lots of crime gets solved by catching someone for one crime and then through further questioning more crimes are unveiled. For example, a driver gets pulled over for going too fast (a crime), then a check of his vehicle shows illegal handgun or drugs (a second crime). Further checks of his background might reveal that he has a warrant for murder (a third crime).

None of this would be found if he was just given a citation for speeding and sent on his way. Assuming can be useful sometimes. You should try it.

I do support that policy, but I wouldn't assume the driver is a murderer before the warrant is revealed. So yes, I do support broken windows policing. For the original scenario, I believe NYPD is right for doing a background check for warrants and citizenship, but I wouldn't assume he is illegal until the check reveals that. Practically speaking, there isn't much of a difference; the difference is in the mindset.