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.
The more legal weapons we have against thugs the better. That means being creative. Bust adults with them for contributing.
Ideally, their neighborhoods would be gentrified and they would be thinned out that way. Gentrification is the only way to push bad folks out of an area. Checkpoints for license and registration can choke off enemy mobility, bust DUIs, and find those with outstanding warrants. Tow ALL vehicles whose paperworks isn't straight. That way many of the criminals will be turned into pedestrians or forced to drive with others. Smart cops know a full car is up to no good and can find reasons to pull it over. Asset forfeiture is another tool. Lose enough cars and many folks won't drive into contested areas.
I'm sorry but gentrification is not the best solution. You said it will "push bad folks out of an area" and, yes it will, but at the cost of causing another area to decline. Where would you suggest they be pushed to? As more and more people move back to the city this will occur but it would only push people out farther into the suburbs. So again I ask, how is the solution to "push bad folks" out of an area help the overall problem at all and also, where would you push these people to?
I disagree. Why does a 17 year old citizen have less of a right to be on public streets than an adult?
I don't see how the government can legally discriminate against an entire group of people. Which, it is discrimination. This law was put in place to lower crime on the assumption that 17 year olds and under are going to commit crime. Well, anyone can commit crime. It is an ageless activity.
That being said, I do wholly agree that parents shouldn't allow their children to wander the streets at such late hours, but I don't think the government has any right to enforce a law banning a group of people from a public place. If a private entity wants to do it, fine, then that's their right.
The law does discriminate. If you are younger than 18 years old, then you are considered a "minor."
As far as personal security, avoid people who are poor, avoid people who don't look like you (technically not nice, but a total win in a practical sense),.
wow what a statement.... so rich kids can't be punks, only poor kids? And if you are white, you should avoid minorities? And on flip side, a black person should avoid all whites? I thought we were trying to get the world to be a place that segregation didn't exist anymore...
I may agree that a single person walking late at night should consider to avoid a group of others, but do you stop first and ask them to see their tax returns for 2010? Or confirm their racial heritage before continuing ( or running the other way )?
while you possibly had a reasonable point to try and make, at least IMO it does not come across that way... i do think the law needs to come down on any issues hard, but I sure wouldn't pin crimes on any one group alone.
wow what a statement.... so rich kids can't be punks, only poor kids? And if you are white, you should avoid minorities? And on flip side, a black person should avoid all whites? I thought we were trying to get the world to be a place that segregation didn't exist anymore...
I may agree that a single person walking late at night should consider to avoid a group of others, but do you stop first and ask them to see their tax returns for 2010? Or confirm their racial heritage before continuing ( or running the other way )?
while you possibly had a reasonable point to try and make, at least IMO it does not come across that way... i do think the law needs to come down on any issues hard, but I sure wouldn't pin crimes on any one group alone.
I'm sorry but gentrification is not the best solution. You said it will "push bad folks out of an area" and, yes it will, but at the cost of causing another area to decline. Where would you suggest they be pushed to? As more and more people move back to the city this will occur but it would only push people out farther into the suburbs. So again I ask, how is the solution to "push bad folks" out of an area help the overall problem at all and also, where would you push these people to?
Just following this discussion from afar, but this reminded me of an article I read several years ago in the Atlantic about another Memphis. Seems they shut down the old housing projects and pushed the residents out to formerly quiet areas, only to later discover that the violent crime went with them:
You can't be serious. Somebody who now lives in CHICAGO of all places is making a statement like this? I mean seriously, you don't even have to dig hard to find incidents like this that happen on a much more regular basis in that crime-infested city:
Chicago is the poster child for what's wrong with the inner city. Gangland is it's middle name. That said, there's a lot more to Chicago than its gangs. And there's a lot more to Columbia and Greenville than their curfews in response to violence in their entertainment districts late at night by teen thugs whose parents lost control of them at age 2.
By the way, no follow-up that I've seen by the newspapers. How were the little hoodlums charged? How is Carter?
You haven't been looking very hard evidently. The "lots of other people" comment was ugly, and I'm surprised a business owner in a state as small as S.C. would make habitually and obsessively disparaging one of the state's most important cities one of his life's missions. What's the name of your company?
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.