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.
If any kind of decent competition comes out, Deblasio will have a tough reelection. He won convincingly but with a very low turnout. Also it's not guaranteed that the people who came out to vote for him first time will come out again.
A lot of people moved to, and invested in, NYC, predicated on it being what they considered safe. If they feel it becoming unsafe, they will come out of the woodwork to get rid of Bla, and bring back the policies that worked.
Why do so many of you blindly defend stop and frisk? If you actually analyze statistics over the last few years, you would notice that murders declined in 2013 (stop and frisk drastically scaled back), and in 2014 (stop and frisk eliminated), while the murder rate fluctuated at various points in earlier years with stop and frisk in effect. In addition to this, it's unconstitutional, and the court ruled against it.
Why do so many of you blindly defend stop and frisk? If you actually analyze statistics over the last few years, you would notice that murders declined in 2013 (stop and frisk drastically scaled back), and in 2014 (stop and frisk eliminated), while the murder rate fluctuated at various points in earlier years with stop and frisk in effect. In addition to this, it's unconstitutional, and the court ruled against it.
Thugs don't tend to follow public policy very closely. It takes time for them to catch on that they can once again carry illegal guns since they are now apparently protected by the constitution to do so.
Why do so many of you blindly defend stop and frisk? If you actually analyze statistics over the last few years, you would notice that murders declined in 2013 (stop and frisk drastically scaled back), and in 2014 (stop and frisk eliminated), while the murder rate fluctuated at various points in earlier years with stop and frisk in effect. In addition to this, it's unconstitutional, and the court ruled against it.
"Stop and Frisk" (an intentionally incorrect term), was never eliminated or determined to be unconstitutional either. "Stop and frisk" as termed by the NYC media is actually a Terry stop and it is perfectly legal when properly conducted according to the ruling decided 47 years ago, racial politics notwithstanding.
But you are right that "Stop and Frisk" isn't the issue here. The issue is that cops don't care anymore and are no longer willing to risk their hides for an unappreciative public. Perps are starting to catch on to this fact and are adjusting fire accordingly.
"Stop and Frisk" (an intentionally incorrect term), was never eliminated or determined to be unconstitutional either. "Stop and frisk" as termed by the NYC media is actually a Terry stop and it is perfectly legal when properly conducted according to the ruling decided 47 years ago, racial politics notwithstanding.
But you are right that "Stop and Frisk" isn't the issue here. The issue is that cops don't care anymore and are no longer willing to risk their hides for an unappreciative public. Perps are starting to catch on to this fact and are adjusting fire accordingly.
Terry vs Ohio held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity, and it also held that the police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garment's for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person maintained may be "armed and dangerous".
That sounds different from what was happening in New York, where the police were systematically stopping and searching people without even reasonable cause.
Terry vs Ohio held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity, and it also held that the police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garment's for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person maintained may be "armed and dangerous".
That sounds different from what was happening in New York, where the police were systematically stopping and searching people without even reasonable cause.
No, leftist hysteria aside, Terry stops were happening in NYC as well. And we were better off for it as well.
The lefts' main problem with stop and frisk is that blacks and Latinos were being disproportionately stopped and frisked. But, they basically used a rather simple and laughable numbers game to claim discrimination (i.e. 80%+ of people stopped and frisked were black/Latino, despite blacks and Latinos comprising around 50% of the city's population).
If they were being honest, however, the numbers don't suggest racism at all. Mainly, and I'm getting tired of explaining something that should be obvious to anyone taking an honest look at matters: (and let's take this step by step), black and Latino communities tend to have significantly more violent crime than white/Asian/etc. communities in this country. As a result, we tend to see a higher police presence in these areas to combat that crime (despite calls for "policing equity," it doesn't quite make sense to place the same number of police officers in Georgetown as you would in Anacostia, or in the Upper East Side as you would in East New York; likewise, the approach to policing a high violent crime area will be different to policing a low violent crime area just taking into account officer safety and the threat to officer safety . . . these guys and gals want to make it home at the end of the day). Due to the higher police numbers within certain communities relative to the violent crime, you're necessarily (assuming that police officers are doing their jobs) going to have higher police interactions (whether for misdemeanors or felonies) than you'd have elsewhere, despite the fact that certain misdemeanor offenses may be taking place in higher numbers in low violent crime neighborhoods vs. high violent crime neighborhoods. And, along with greater police interaction, you're going have a greater number of allegations of police abuse, whether substantiated or not. But that's not racism; that's a pure policing numbers issue. You'd have a stronger argument if blacks and Latinos were being stopped in areas where police resources aren't being focused (i.e. if blacks were the predominate racial group being stopped frisked in white neighborhoods), but that's not the case. You could "balance" out the numbers by flooding the Upper East Side, etc., with a higher police presence, but what would the justification be for that? Those resources are needed in high crime areas, not in low priority/low crime areas.
The strongest part of the federal district court's ruling (the judge in that case, by the way, was removed from considering that and other similar cases after the federal appeals court ruled that she showed the appearance of bias) seemed to focus on the fact that, even in racially mixed zip codes, we were seeing these disparities. The problem with that argument/analysis, however, is that it failed to acknowledge that, even in such neighborhoods, they are still fairly racially segregated and violent crime is taking place not within the entire neighborhood (by zip code), but in specific areas.
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.
