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.
They are not imposing martial law. They're trying to keep neighborhoods safe for law abiding people. When the city descends into Chicago-like violence, then what will you say? It got it's "edge" back?
You had about 3 decades of decay that's been reversed in the last 20...and now you want to start the process that throws it all away.
Who is committing this crime, and why?
Bloomberg and Giuliani did not make the city crime free.
The true crime problem in NYC is that NYC is overbuilt with a lot of public housing and buildings that take an excess of welfare clients.
To really reduce crime, you'd have to address the source problem. Which Bloomberg had no intention of doing, or was unable to do.
Oh, and even part of the crime drop under Giuliani was the fact that the national economy improved in the 90s. You had more working people.
i find it funny most of the stop and frisk cheerleaders on these threads probably dont even live in an area was stop and frisk was heavily practiced, if practiced @ all.........and if they do, theyre probably gentrifiers.....cuz we all know one of the main objectives of stop and frisk was to protect the gentrifiers while the so called "undesirables" still lived in the area.........stop and frisk accomplished NOTHING, the drug dealers and bangers simply found more clever and sneaky ways to do dirt......heck in a NY ghetto, the cops are bigger criminals than the so called hoodlums lot of times anyway......*lol and smh @ the idiots i see on this board*
i find it funny most of the stop and frisk cheerleaders on these threads probably dont even live in an area was stop and frisk was heavily practiced, if practiced @ all.........and if they do, theyre probably gentrifiers.....cuz we all know one of the main objectives of stop and frisk was to protect the gentrifiers while the so called "undesirables" still lived in the area.........stop and frisk accomplished NOTHING, the drug dealers and bangers simply found more clever and sneaky ways to do dirt......heck in a NY ghetto, the cops are bigger criminals than the so called hoodlums lot of times anyway......*lol and smh @ the idiots i see on this board*
Good point. How many of you even live in a stop and frisk area? I do.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
They are not imposing martial law. They're trying to keep neighborhoods safe for law abiding people. When the city descends into Chicago-like violence, then what will you say? It got it's "edge" back?
You had about 3 decades of decay that's been reversed in the last 20...and now you want to start the process that throws it all away.
The problem I have with this statement is that, as you mentioned, crime in NYC has been on a decline within the last 20 years. S&F was installed in the early 2000s when crime was already following the path to decline. So why was it so paramount to have S&F then and what makes it so necessary now? What makes you assume that without S&F crime will increase when the previous years without it, crime was still decreasing?
In order to address the problem you need to control the areas where crime is rampant: Manhattan South of Fulton Street.
Ah, a lot of that kind of crime is also rampant in midtown, the city's other main business district/corporate headquarters district. JP Dimon of Chase works out of Chase's headquarters on Park Avenue, and Citi's headquarters is on 53rd and Lex. And don't forget the big Bank of America building on 42nd Street. But you're right, I see your point.
Stop and Frisk is mostly a compromise to the fact that segregation is illegal. NYPD can't segregate, so the compromise is to put more pressure on "types" of people that commit crime.
It works, but there is a sinister philosophy at work here. Would NYC have less crime if residents were only white and Asian? Most would say yes. But attempts at perfecting a city usually benefits one group of people while targeting the other group of people as the problem. So instead of creating a city that's good for everyone, you have a city that's good for one party and off-limits to the other.
Stop and Frisk is mostly a compromise to the fact that segregation is illegal. NYPD can't segregate, so the compromise is to put more pressure on "types" of people that commit crime.
It works, but there is a sinister philosophy at work here. Would NYC have less crime if residents were only white and Asian? Most would say yes. But attempts at perfecting a city usually benefits one group of people while targeting the other group of people as the problem. So instead of creating a city that's good for everyone, you have a city that's good for one party and off-limits to the other.
If the city were mostly white and Asian, it would still have similar amounts of crime. NYC wasn't crime free when it was mostly white in the early 20th century.
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.
