@ over 3 years ago
Monroe, NY, USA
Why should the cops be forced to respect individual rights and the constitution?
@ over 3 years ago
Old Town, Topeka, KS
@ over 3 years ago
Do people have the individual right to live?
yes. do they also have the right to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure?
I think you mean unreasonable. Unwarranted is nowhere to be found and to expect a warrant for every search is unrealistic. And unnecessary. As per the constitution you mentioned and the courts.
No. I mean unwarranted. The 4th Amendment, that specifically protects all Americans from unwarranted police searches specifically states "warrants".
You should read the Constitution sometime. It's full of great stuff.
My question stands. Do people have the right to be protected from unwarranted searches?
I looked didn't see the word "unwarranted". Did you have someone read it to you?
However, I DID see the word unreasonable. I take it you're not familiar with the topic.
If you ned something explained, let me know.
Too many people have the wrong impression of what "Stop, question & possibly frisk" is actually about. It's completely legal and completely within the constitution.
is the constitution like the bible with a million different translations?
@ over 3 years ago
Cerritos, CA 90703, USA
Is that what it is to you?
Or does your version say unwarranted also?
There are times where a search is allowed without a warrant. And to bring this into this conversation implies all stops include a search. Which I hope you know isn't true.
If you wear a sexy dress you might get molested. If you have your pants hanging off your ass, you might get molested. ... By a cop. .. Because
@ over 3 years ago
Elmhurst, IL, USA
Has that been your experience?
I agree with you plc, I was curious because the poster from Topeka sounded so confident.
PLC, can you provide a single instance that police can search a person's home, person, auto.. when no crime has been committed.
@ over 3 years ago
Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA
Warwick, NY 10990, United States
And again, Stop, question and possible frisk doesn't mean a search.
how is frisking not a search?
what is it than?
The very concept of stop, question, or search without any good reason goes against our individual liberties.
Is there any law allowing the police to detain a person without a good reason?
Then don't stop me.
It's there any law requiring me to answer questions asked to me by the police, or do I have the right to remain silent?
That's what I thought.
Then don't question me.
It's there any law allowing the police to search me without any good reason, or does the Constitution protect me from such unwarranted searches?
That's what I thought.
Then don't search me.
Instead of using profiling as your only method of determining the probability of criminal activity, how about you do some actual investigative police work.
Do any of the examples given in the link you posted of "Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement" apply to Stop and Search without any reasonable cause, as was the case in New York?
Just like I thought. You really don't know what you're talking about. Stops aren't made without cause. I've never heard of stop and search. Maybe that's what it's called in Topeka
cause or suspicion. .. Where is the line drawn when it comes to suspicion?
Villa Park, IL, USA
Cause, not suspicion. There's a pretty wide line between the two.
, , United States
Police have always had the authority to stop and search someone with a reasonable cause. Why was there a need to implement the new policy?
It's not a new policy
The only thing that was new was making it a performance standard as well as keeping stats on stops. Which made it seem racist. When in fact, it isn't.
But back to your earlier comments. Are "unwarranted searches" allowed? Does the constitution bar "unwarranted searches?
There has been "actual police work". There's no way our crime rate would have plummeted so much if there hadn't been.
@ over 3 years ago
New York, NY 10016, USA
Thank you AMI. The police may search a person in instances where a crime has not occurred.
80s and early 90s NYC was a much scarier place.
Same with Chicago, there is violence now that is unacceptable bit it is more compartmentalized
I don't know about Chicago but the NYC total murder rate and crime rate plummeted incredibly sharply. The nation as a whole did as well but NYC was really in a league of its own in terms of that.
Doesn't the majority of murder, committed with guns, occur in urban areas, in the 14-24 yo age group, primarily among youthful gang members?
et in Arcadia ego
@ over 3 years ago
Corning, CA 96021, USA
At its peak, NYC was averaging 50 murders a week. A WEEK
Policies are instituted to reduce crime. The work to the point where people question their need. So they're abandoned. Which in turn brings us back to where we started.
The crack epidemic of the 90s caused crime rates to peak in multiple cities.
Back to the topic at hand, where do you draw the line between security and liberty?
100% of either is exclusive of the other.
Assigning quotas for police pat downs is ridiculous.
Police should be able to articulate a reason for their action.
Police must prove legal authority for their actions.
Woodland, CA 95695, USA
No quotas are assigned and a report for each stop explaining the reason for the stop must be filled out.
Crime rate peaked in multiple cities but only NYC's plummeted as much as it did.
New York, NY 10024, USA
Safest big city in the country
There are a lot of misconceptions out there. From profiling to quotas to illegal searches to whatever. If I get mugged by a white man in a red shirt I want to police to look for a white man in a red shirt.
I don't want they police to stop and frisk people for whom they have no legitimate reason suspect of criminal activity.
So, then we're both glad they put an end to that practice.
That practice never existed here.
Then what practice has been disrupted that is causing the increase in crime according to your article?
Stop question and frisk. Are you paying attention?
@ over 3 years ago
Yorkville, New York, NY
Tor, tor, tor, tor, tor, tor, tor!
10117 Berlin, Germany
Can the police still stop, question, and frisk someone they have reason to believe has committed a crime?
Do Terry Searches no longer apply to the police of New York?
A guy grabs you from behind and puts a gun to your head. Takes your phone and wallet. Runs off. All you see is a black guy in a white shirt and jeans run around the corner. As soon as he's out of sight, a patrol car
Rolls up. You scream "I just got mugged! He went around that corner. Black guy white shirt and jeans. Took my wallet and phone!" The police zip around the corner and see 20 white guys. Some shirtless and some with shirts
One black guy with no shirt on is among them. There are no people around. What do the police do?
* no other people around
I know this one. They shoot the black guy at least ten times and return the wallet to its rightful owner.
Utica, NY , United States
What should be the proper course of action for the police in this instance
So you won't answer?
Your question should have a clear cut "yes" answer. This day and age it does not.
Your inability to answer speaks volumes.gotta go now. I'll catch up later.
In your scenario, I think the police should question all of the gentlemen present as to what they witnessed. See where the evidence leads. Investigative police work.
What do you feel the proper course of action should be?
plc your scenario is hypothetical, one built of your own mind and you don't even see the fact your fearful victim didn't even mention a gun but you were clear to use it.
@ over 3 years ago
Martinsburg, WV 25404, United States
but the star person is right, police already have the right to stop and search anyone they suspect as being involved in a crime. complete lack of reason has been removed from the law.
now you want to argue that police, without reason, can search whoever they want and like the opinion of the state senator in your article that it would lead to an increase in crime.
i have no doubt that is true to some degree as everyone living under a police state reduces crime drastically, and of varying degrees to which that police state is applied.
you operate under the idea that for everyone to be safe police should be given the authority to do whatever they want (within the law though it should be pointed out that gives them near total control)
that the innocent should be subjected to such to whatever is needed to protect them from the guilty caught in such sweeps.
you may cry that this is an unfair description or not really what you believe, but in line with your positions on the tsa and every police action you have ever been involved in here this is a perfectly fair and accurate
representation of where you will fall on these issues 99% of the time.
your problem with people who challenge you on this is they are rejecting your promise of their protection for their obedience. just as you insist that the patriot act has not infringed on the rights of innocent americans
you hold onto the illusion that the innocent persecuted by a sweeping policy such as this (which police already have the right to do within reason) are worth the guilty people that will be caught.
police have had the authority to do whatever they want to blacks in this country and it hasn't helped anything yet, it has only shown to increase crime in the new generation.
Wrong on too many counts to mention. All I ask is a simple answer to a much too realistic scenario. Can you handle that?
NY smells like a combination of rotting food, sun-baked urine, and months-old kitchen grease. That being said, police should be able to stop and frisk anyone at anytime because you know, 9/11.
srorriM & ekomS
@ over 3 years ago
Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States
I answered your scenario. What do you think the proper police response to the scenario is?
I ask if the police in New York still have the authority to stop question and frisk a person they suspect of committing a criminal act.
You answered "it depends".
The implications there, is that certain situations exist in which the police do not have the authority. Can you describe a scenario in which the police do not have the authority?
The two cops try to question the 21 people. They all say, "you can't stop me. You don't have any reason to believe I committed a crime" and all walk away. Including the guilty one. Because in NYC, you can't base a reason
To believe a person committed a crime based on a description of race. When the victim says "white" "black" "Spanish" "Asian" or whatever, the police must ignore that. In the scenario provided, the cops would have reason
To stop any white guy with a white shirt on. Based on the victims description. Even though in reality the description given clearly indicates they didn't do it. Welcome to policing in 2014 NYC.
This scenario, gives you just what you've asked. A situation where the police have reason to believe the one individual committed a crime but are not allowed to stop and question him. And if they do, NYC has said it's ok
does your whole argument revolve around a hypothetical situation you made up on the spot? you need to be clear on that.
For the person stopped, to sue the officer personally.
Joshua, you're going to have to wait your turn.
why are you so passive aggressive all of the time?
LOL. It's always either "passive aggressive" "ad hominem" or "the worst post ever" with you. Get new material. And wait your turn. Unless, of course, you want to debate tacos.
because add the phrase "lol" and that is a majority of your submissions. you regularly attack people when your argument is weak, see personally attacking s&m, arcadia and orwell when your argument was weak.
your hypothetical situation is one you made up and is one you control it is also not the basis of policy and it is obviously overcharged with your addition to a handgun which isn't relayed to officers in your imaginary
it also leaves out the fact that when someone tells responding officers that they have been mugged that creates the reason to conduct searches, instead of searches based on nothing.
your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
Joshua, I'll address you when it's your turn.
Topeka, last year the city council passed a few pieces of legislation that created this. Look it up.
that is not the truth
you are controlling the conversation and lying to people who are obviously not going to look it up.
Can you please wait your turn?
Can you provide the written NYPD policy that dictates officers must ignore witness and victim statements of race in criminal incidents?
why would i revisit your horrible arguments and stuff you lied about again? everyone else finds the ability to talk to more than one person at a time, maybe you should get a handle on this stuff.
Topeka. It's not an NYPD policy. It was passed by the city council.
Do you have a copy of it?
I'm not sure what standards of debate this forum upholds, but typically, the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim.
You seem to hold a double standard with regard to your willingness to respond to direct inquiries, versus your expectation of a response from others to your inquiries.
What claim did I make? I posted a link. I agree with the content of the article. The claim was yours. I've answered every question you've asked. I won't do your research for you. You won't learn anything that way.
The link you posted in the OP doesn't work. It requires a login.
You claimed that the police must ignore victim statements regarding the race of the perpetrators of criminal activity. I'd like to read the policy that requires police to ignore those victims statements.
Is it customary on this forum to make claims or accusations and have no expectation of any burden of proof to substantiate those claims?
I have no expectation for you to conduct "research" for me. I simply expect you to support the claim you've made regarding New York police being required to disregard victim statements concerning the race of suspected criminals.
Do you have a copy of this policy?
Cops don't need to know race, they know out of experience. For instance if the perpetrator commits a robbery and shot people as he's leaving scot free,he's black
@ over 3 years ago
Brunswick, OH, USA
What are knee grows so pissed off about! knee grows okay I'm good :-)
that's awesome, claim that stop and frisk was the city council's policy, then link city council policy that you believe is detrimental.
The New York law prohibiting racial profiling by police officers doesn't require officers to ignore victim statements regarding the race of criminal suspects, as you have claimed.
That simply isn't true.
Here's the text of the law.
In your hypothetical scenario, the police would absolutely be able to consider the race of the suspect, as detailed by the victim's statements.
Your statement that the police would not be permitted to stop and question an individual they suspected of committing a crime, based on witness statement of race and criminal activity, is simply not true.
You're being disingenuous.
The law simply states that Police officers may not engage in acts that "rely on race as the determinative factor in initiating law enforcement action against an individual, rather than an individual's behavior or other information or circumstances...
"... that links a person to suspected unlawful activity."
In the hypothetical scenario, the victim statement of the mugging would constitute the information that links a person to suspected unlawful activity.
The law does not state that police should disregard victim's statements concerning the race of suspected criminals.
Why would you suggest that the police should ignore victim statements regarding the race of suspected criminals?
No the police would not be able to single out the black guy because by doing so, they are using his race as the determining factor in the stop. Nothing else matched. Even if the victim said it was a black guy.
Poland, NY 13431, United States
And if they do so, they open themselves up to a personal lawsuit. Thanks to the new laws.
Making cops hesitate to take action is dangerous.
But it's the citizens who support these anti law enforcement policies that pay the price.
Racial profiling doesn't happen in police departments as a matter of policy. It happens on the rare occasion by a small % of rogue cops. Laws like these won't stop them. It'll only handcuff the good cop. Not good.
Your assessment is not accurate. The law clearly states that race cannot be the determining factor in taking police action, rather than other information that links a person to suspected unlawful activity.
In your scenario, the witness testimony would be the other information that linked a black suspect to the criminal activity.
Your statement that the police "must ignore" victim statements regarding the race of suspected criminals is blatantly false.
You either hadn't read and understood the verbiage of the law, and were ignorant to its implications, or you were being intentionally disingenuous in an attempt to use fearmongering as a tactic to promote your opposition to the law.
Your statement is not true. Nowhere in the law does it state that police officers must disregard victim statements concerning the race of criminal suspects.
If "racial profiling doesn't happen in police departments as a matter of policy", then they should have no problem with the law.
The law serves to prevent racial profiling, and ensure that all police actions are based on the evidence of the case. If police are doing their jobs, they have nothing to fear.
In my scenario, what would be the basis of stopping the one black guy?
As far as the police officer being sued by a suspect, the law clearly states that any judgement shall be injunctive and declaratory only.
I have read and am well versed on the law. I am not nor I have been disingenuous. You have interpreted the law in a way that suits your beliefs. Based on your obvious ignorance of police procedure.
In your scenario, the basis for stopping the one black guy would be the witness testimony, which would be considered "information or circumstances that links a person to suspected unlawful activity"
The stop and question would be permissible under the law.
I didn't say that the law states they must ignore victims statements on race. However, that is the unintended result of the law. I hope it's unintended. Knowing the authors, I would guess not.
The officers would have a reason to suspect the black man of committing a crime, and would be acting within the law to detain and question him.
Racial profiling doesn't happen. There have been laws to prevent racial profiling on the books for years. Without an issue. This law goes overboard. Preventing good police work.
Anyone should have an an issue with any law that unnecessarily cripples effective police work.
"When the victim says "white" "black" "Spanish" "Asian" or whatever, the police must ignore that."
-The Award Winning PLC
You absolutely did say that.
This law has made doing good police work something to worry about.
But hey, that's according to the professionals. What do they know?
If racial profiling doesn't occur, the the police have nothing to concern themselves about in regards to this law, because they're not violating it.
This law serves to hold police accountable for their actions. It requires police to be able to articulate the reason for their actions that's based on evidence.
No. If the witness saw him and said "that's him" then yes. But that's not the case. They just see a black guy and they would be stopping him based only on that. No good.
Yes. The unintended consequence of the law is that they must ignoring that. They can't base their actions on race. Even it it's what's told to them. Or they may face a lawsuit.
Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough or maybe you misinterpreted it. I didn't say or mean to say its in the law.
If the police stop that one black guy, they would be in violation of the law. And may be personally sued.
So the result is the police are less proactive. The law doesn't say they have to be less proactive. But that's what the result is. Criminals know this and take advantage. Arming themselves more often. Without fear.
More criminals armed. More violence. More victims. Less profiling? No.
You're wrong. Can you provide an example of an officer being sued under this law, as a result of using witness testimony regarding the race of a suspect?
This law just took effect.
That's what makes me wrong? That the public is not aware of a lawsuit that has resulted from this just instituted law? Really?
The law says that the police at not use race. What reason would the police have to stop the black guy in my scenario? He wasn't wearing a White shirt while others were.
If he were, they could. Based on several pieces of information. But without it they only have his race. And that's a no no.
No. You're wrong, because you're starting that police must ignore victim statements. That's not true.
You're wrong because the law explicitly states that the suspects race cannot be the ONLY factor for police action. The action must be based on the evidence of the case.
The law clarifies that "other information" must be the basis for police action. In your scenario, the witness testimony would be that "other information".
Nowhere does the law state that the race of a suspect cannot be considered in police stops. Out simply states that race alone cannot be the only factor in police action. It must be coupled with other information.
You're being disingenuous, and making claims about the law that simply aren't true.
The "other information" would be that he did it. Otherwise all they have to stop him is his race.
You're wrong, because you're creating a "strawman" logical fallacy. You're arguing against a criteria of a law that doesn't exist.
The "other information" would be the testimony of a witness that the crime was committed by a black man. That testimony is sufficient reason for the police to stop and question the only black man present in your scenario.
Again I ask, where in the law does it state that the race of a criminal suspect may not be a factor in consideration of police action?
Race may still be used as the determinative factor for initiating police action, when used as evidence of a suspect matching the description of witness testimony.
No. It isn't. That's the whole issue here. If the witness pointed him out, yes. But stopping him solely because he's the only black guy would be wrong. I don't think you're understanding that.
The law states it may not be the only factor. Read again. You'll see it.
You are wrong. The law limits how race can be used. It can't be used as the only factor in stopping someone. The guy in the scenario would only be stopped because he's black.
You're being disingenuous again. Stopping a suspect because he matches the eyewitness description is still permissible under the law.
The law says race may not be used as the determinate factor but you say that it may.
You're being wrong. It is as long as that description is not solely race.
The law is very clear. It states that race cannot be the sole determinative factor in police action, it must be coupled with "other information that links a person to suspected unlawful activity".
The witness testimony is the other information that links the black man to the suspected unlawful activity.
Your statement that police "must ignore" witness statements regarding the race of criminal suspects is blatantly false. The law does not state that. That is a fabrication you've created in an attempt to oppose the law.
No it doesn't. The victim did not is the black guy. So what's the other information?
In the absence of the witness testimony, isolating the black man as a suspect, while ignoring the white men present at the scene would be prohibited racial profiling.
I do t think you're understanding it correctly. I could be wrong. So could this Democrat state senator. So could the police unions. Who knows. The stats are showing that we are not.
However, the witness testimony stating the race of the suspect would classify as the circumstantial evidence required by the law to make the stop permissible.
On the other hand, you could be wrong. It's possible that you're not fully comprehending the ramifications of these laws. Time will tell.
Have you read the law? I've included a link, since you seemed to have difficulty locating the text of the law. You should read it. It clarifies your misconceptions regarding permitted police activity.
Reading the text of the law should correct your misperceptions of what you believe the law dictates.
I'm telling you that on that scenario in NYC, the stop would not be permitted. I've seen it first hand. You have your opinion and u have mine. I won't try to convince you of anything.
LOL. And I have mine
I do agree with the senator in the link. I do agree with the former Mayor and the former Police Commissioner. And I do agree with the unions. The numbers are starting to show it.
If a case arises in which a stop based on witness testimony is deemed to be in violation of the law, it will be documented. Do you have any evidence to support your position?
My misperceptions? LMAO!
A solution to a non existent problem. There are no racial profiling issues in NYC. Haven't been for a long time.
Then the law won't be a problem to enforce.
File a FOIL request. Here's 1 example that I know of.the accused name was Bryant Sommers or Summers. Happened on 111and Lenox Ave. Late April early May. Victim was a Mexican female. Case never made it to arraignment.
It won't. The police will sit back and watch. Why should they risk their livelihood over something so stupid. There's the problem.
I wish I could do this all day but I can't. Take care.
So, you have no evidence to support your position?
To support my opinion? I have the law. Some have interpreted it one way and others another way. Can you accept that?
Time will tell which side was right.
Unfortunately for your position, there is evidence of racial profiling, and quota systems by NYPD.
I currently can't link. What's the evidence?
Please give me more than less than a handful of disgruntled officers in a department 30,000+ strong. Surely in a department that uses quotas and profiling would have documentation. Please provide.
Audio recordings of Deputy Inspector telling officers during Roll Call to stop "male blacks 14 to 21". That is the textbook definition of racial profiling.
I would need to hear the whole thing. I'll see what I can find.
Evidence of a quota system:
NYPD officer testified that he was told at a daily roll call that he had to "log at least five stop-and-frisks, make one arrest and write 20 tickets each month". That's a textbook quota system.
Here's the full audio of the inspector. It tells a little bit of a different story than is being reported.
I can't take the testimony of 1 or 2 disgruntled employees serious when they have obviously biased testimony like this.
Are you capable of understanding the difference between a quota and productivity goals?
Can you explain it to me?
Floyd v New York
" Judge Shira Scheindlin found the NYPD’s practices to violate New Yorkers’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and also found that the practices were racially discriminatory in violation of the..."
"... Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "
"There are no racial profiling issues in NYC."
That's not true.
" Under the NYPD’s policy, targeting the ‘right people’ means stopping people in part because of their race. Together with Commissioner Kelly’s statement that the NYPD focuses stop and frisks on young blacks and Hispanics in order to instill in..."
"... them a fear of being stopped, and other explicit references to race . . . there is a sufficient basis for inferring discriminatory intent.”
You're quoting the biased judge? Really?
I'm quoting the court case that ended racial profiling in stop and frisk cases in New York. The ones you claim don't exist.
Stinson v New York will prove you wrong regarding quotas.
It's been granted class action status
Isn't Stinson still before the court? I believe so. Are you a fortune teller?
Stop trying to prove my opinion wrong. You're only going to end up frustrated.
Some liberal crybaby screaming quotas because he got a ticket doesn't prove quotas exist.
Are you familiar with the Floyd case? Judge Sheindlin had her mind made up before any evidence was presented. She is the poster child for activist judges. Quoting garbage is still garbage.
She was removed from the case. I know that flies in the face of your attempts to persuade. Sorry
If you're going to convince somebody, you will need more than quotes from an activist judge that's been removed from the case and crystal ball predictions.
Racial profiling isn't an issue. Shouldn't the police be proactive? Shouldn't the police pursue those committing crimes? Like Bloomberg said, they're actually not stopping enough minorities.
If you're happy with a reactive police force please come to NYC. Just be ready to see crime go through the roof.
How can the police be "proactive"?
Hudson, OH, USA
Ya think, Pink?
How can police be "proactive"?
I won't answer that. It'll deprive you of some good research.
You seem to be hesitant to respond to any direct inquiry. That makes having a dialogue problematic.
You offer a lot of claims and very little support for those claims. It's quite interesting.
The few links you do post don't function properly.
The YouTube link of the police audio you posted doesn't work either.
Interesting. If I found it, I'm sure you can find it.
If you ask a question I answer. But as I stated earlier, I won't do the research for you. You won't learn that way.
So don't ask me to provide you anything you can find yourself.
How do you know if my support is so little if you can't check it out?
It seems like you think the NYPD is out of control and needed to be reigned in. That's your opinion, correct? You are entitled to that. I'm not sure what you base it on. But who cares. You do you. I feel differently.
This one works properly.
AUDIO: New York's Police Union Worked With the NY…: http://youtu.be/ZVkkhkLSqWE
This one is also functioning as it should.
Cop exposes NYPD Quota System: http://youtu.be/m3mmuZsHmv8
I converted a few disgruntled employees already. But hey. Keep swinging. You might hit something. I had to laugh when I heard one say "every 15 minutes is overtime". What does that even mean?
But wait. I'll get some friends on camera in silhouette saying there are no quotas. There are productivity goals. Just like any other job.
Btw. My link works properly also. You just don't want to hear anything that doesn't agree with you.
Neither you OP link or YouTube link are accessible. They don't function properly.
The testimony of the officers, by themselves, would not be nearly as convincing without the secret audio recordings. They lend more credibility to the whistleblowers statements.
If the secret audio recording said anything incriminating. Did you learn the difference between a quota and a productivity goal? Did you learn what proactive policing means?
(Hard press the link. Copy and paste to a browser)
No. I never looked. I assume that if you have a point to make, you'll make it.
If not, you'll continue to throw out terms that you're ill prepared to support with a justified position.
I'm not overly concerned either way.
(Post a link that works)
You can't learn anything when you already know everything.
Which is why I have had you do your own research. See how that works? Although I don't think you have though. Did you learn that the judge was thrown off the case?
Did you learn that the comment about male blacks 14-21 was talking about something other than what was reported?
Do the research. Dig. Don't just accept the limited quotes fed to you. Look deeper. When we do that, we tend to learn things.
I believe the only way to post hyperlinks is from the app. Which you know I don't have.
One of the links you posted did work.
It contains some quite memorable quotes from police officers upset about the new law.
" In order to live safely, you have to be willing to give up some of your privacy," the officer said.
This one is very telling of the mental state of the police
"...the officer said, later adding 'as far as we’re concerned, let the city burn.’"
Thanks for posting that link. I found it very enlightening.
What authority have the police lost as a result of the passage of the new law?
this is something else...
where did all of plcs friends go, he used to need them to back him up?
"If you ask a question I answer."
Why should cops be forced to respect individual rights and the Constitution?
Do people have the right to be protected from unwarranted searches?
Do any of the examples given in the link you posted of "Exceptions To The Warrant Requirement" apply to Stop and Frisk without a reasonable cause?
Where do you draw the line between liberty and security?
What do you feel the proper course of action to your hypothetical scenario should be?
Why do you suggest that police would be forced to ignore witness statements regarding criminal suspects?
Can you provide an example of an officer being sued under this law, as a result of using witness testimony regarding race of a suspect?
What authority have police lost as a result of the passage of the new law?
All of the questions I've asked you on this thread remain unanswered. Feel free to address any of them.
Give me a sec. I just got back from a trip. I did answer your questions, but I guess I'll answer them again.
Brooklyn, NY 11231, United States
1. Why should cops be forced to respect individual rights and the Constitution?
Rhetorical question but....
Cops respect individual rights and the Constitution every single day. No new laws are needed for that.
2. Do people have the right to be protected from unwarranted searches?
No. There are circumstances where a search doesn't require a warrant. I answered this and provided instances.
3. Do any of the examples given in the link you posted of "Exceptions To The Warrant Requirement" apply to Stop and Frisk without a reasonable cause?
Did you read the link? Stop and Frisk is covered. A reasonable cause is documented in every stop. Stop require and have reason.
4. Where do you draw the line between liberty and security?
You can't have absolute either as well as the other. You draw your own line. I will draw mine. Society will determine where.
5. Do Terry Searches no longer apply to the police of New York?
It depends on the situation. Some questions do have clear cut yes and no answers.
6. What do you feel the proper course of action to your hypothetical scenario should be?
I think it's obvious that the person fitting the full description best should be given priority attention. But it's not allowed in NYC.
7. Why do you suggest that police would be forced to ignore witness statements regarding criminal suspects?
The law, as written, requires that race not be used as a determining factor. Some statements must be ignored depending on the individual situation.
8. Can you provide an example of an officer being sued under this law, as a result of using witness testimony regarding race of a suspect?
Considering the law just took effect and the speed at which these lawsuits proceed, this will not be available for years to come.
9. How can police be "proactive"?
Do your own homework.
10. What authority have police lost as a result of the passage of the new law?
The authority to do authentic police work. Without fear of lawsuits.
What is an "unwarranted" search? Where does it say a warrant is required for all searches?
Where in the law does it say that race cannot be considered in police investigations?
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315, USA
You're still being disingenuous.
How can police be proactive?
I never said race can't be considered. I said it can't be the "determinative factor" in initiating police contact. If all you have is race, you can't use it.
Where is "unwarranted" mentioned or prohibited in the Constitution?
And once again. Look up the definition of proactive policing. You can do it!
@ almost 3 years ago
Murders are up.
" But overall, crime has dropped 11% in most major crime categories, including burglary, robbery, rape, grand larceny and auto theft."
@ almost 3 years ago
Stone Mountain, GA 30083, USA
" The city would record 324 murders by year’s end at this pace, which would be less than the 328 murders across the five boroughs in 2014, the lowest since 1963."
" At least eight murders were attributed to domestic violence, including that of a 3-year-old Brooklyn boy allegedly beaten to death last week by his belt-wielding aunt."
Maybe an illegal stop and frisk would have gotten that belt off of the streets.
" dozen other slayings were sparked by various disputes, while four were reclassified as murders after the victims died from wounds suffered before the start of the year."
You may want to consider proofreading the articles you think prove your point prior to posting them.
@ almost 3 years ago
Are murders up so far this year?
I'll answer for you. Yes they are. Point made.
So...you're only concerned about one specific type of crime?
How is the overall violent crime rate?
Dacula, GA 30019, USA
Is it better or worse?
I'll answer for you. it's better
you've definitely made a point...just not the one I think you were shooting for
BTW...the city's on pace to have FEWER murders this year than last year...not more
My point here, is that murders are up so far this year. My point had nothing to do with other crimes. Just murders. Which is why I posted "murders are up". Which they are. And my point still stands.
Winder, GA 30680, USA
How's NYC's crime rate responding to the end of stop and frisk?
Do you want me to answer that for you?
murders are up
Are they not?
Funny...you never mentioned murders last year when you were arguing the abolishment of the discriminatory and unconstitutional practice of stop and frisk.
You were only concerned at that time with your hypothetical (yes...you do love to speculate when you think it's convenient for your cause) mugging scenario.
Are violent crime rates better or worse since the end of stop and frisk?
Would you like me to answer for you?
Today I posted murders are up. Today. Today my point is that murders are up. Today. And they are. No speculation. They are. That's all.
Today you avoided answering a simple, direct question. Today. Today you're having difficulty grasping the fact that crime is down.
Monroe, GA 30656, USA
"If you ask a question, I answer."
Is the violent crime rate in New York City better or worse since the abolishment of stop and frisk?
What? Ok, I post that murders are up so far this year. You go off on another direction. Which is fine. You want to talk overall crime, knock yourself out. But I have no obligation to join in your conversation.
Especially when you falsely think it somehow makes my point wrong.
I posted that murders are up. Period. They're up. So far they're up. Want to refute that, go ahead.
But apparently you want to discuss overall crime. Which I do not. But you have this crazy thought that I have to engage you in YOUR discussion. I don't.
The violent crime rate being down was a direct quote taken from the link you posted.
Monroe, GA, USA
So if you want to discuss overall crime, feel free. I may join in I may not. Someone else may decide to chime in.
You may wanna read more than just the headline the next time you attempt to prove a point.
Murders are up so far this year in NYC as compared to last year.
My point is that murders are up. How did I fail?
" overall, crime has dropped 11% in most major crime categories, including burglary, robbery, rape, grand larceny and auto theft."
YOU posted that link.
I did. And the following post said simply. "Murders are up"
"If you ask a question, I answer."
There's one way you've failed.
Posting a link because the headline seems to validate your position without taking 2 minutes to skim it's content for evidence contradictory to your position.
There's another way you failed.
I'll make sure to scan vm daily for questions. Wouldn't want to let you down.
It's not much of a logical leap to assume that you specifically chose to zombify this particular thread from 9 months ago to post a statement that you thought supported your original argument.
No, I'm sure there was
Another reason you felt compelled to make that very specific point on this very dead thread.
What was it?
LOL. I didn't. Somebody ghost bumped the thread. So I decided to post to it. Stealing the ghost bumpers thunder. Only to be met by you two. Hmmm?
It's somebody else's fault.
Worked on you before.....many times
Where's my 2400 bucks hippie?
@ almost 3 years ago
Strongsville, OH, USA
You're not convinced skal? What will I ever do?
she's pretty set in her ways
notice, how skål is talking differently suddenly?
suspecting maybe a spoof
@ almost 3 years ago
Fort Belvoir, VA, USA
come on H20 you know the only 2 people left on votermap are inex and lp. they are spoofing everyone else maybe even me.
President Not Sure
@ almost 3 years ago
Florissant, MO, USA
Not a spoof, H2O...
That settles it.
It's not anywhere near settled.
The question remains regarding what effect the abolishment of NYC's stop and frisk policy has had on violent crime.
Is it better or worse?
Snellville, GA, USA
The original OP concerns this specific topic.
It's extremely relevant to our current discussion.
Snellville, GA 30039, USA
(The "that settles it" was in reference to you and Skal being spoofs as H2O alleges. Skal simply said he's not. Thus the "That settles it.")
I was agitating your refusal to answer simple questions that clearly refute your position.
Clarkston, GA 30021, USA
it amuses me to see you stick your head in the sand
Violent crimes are up.
Nobody has their head in the sand. I was just looking over the past posts. Laughing at the ignorance some of you so readily put on display for the VM world to see.
But to YOUR conversation. In NYC, violent crimes are up.
I would put that in the category of "worse".
Check the points. This account has been along for a long time.
@PLC - the article says violent crimes are down. Not up.
@PLC- do you have any evidence that supports your claim that violent crime has risen since the end of stop and frisk?
Clarkston, GA, USA
@skal - this is the WM witch hunt version of McCarthyism.
If someone disagrees with you, just accuse then of being a spoofer. It's easier than addressing their actual comments.
Skal, does the article say that?
@PLC- your own link contradicts your assertion that violent crime is up.
Murder up 15.5%, Rape up 5.6%, Shootings up 7%
I call that worse
Where does my link contradict that?
"... overall, crime has dropped 11% in most major crime categories, including burglary, robbery, rape, grand larceny and auto theft."
quote from your link
"the article says violent crimes are down. Not up.""your own link contradicts your assertion that violent crime is up." Where?
Burglary, is not a violent crime. Grand Larceny, is not a violent crime. Auto theft, is not a violent crime. I just showed you where rape is up. Murder is up. Shootings are up.
So to your question, "...what effect the abolishment of NYC's stop and frisk policy has had on violent crime. Is it better or worse?" the answer is worse.
@PLC Your cscity.pdf link, shows violent crime YTD change vs. 2014 as -9.67% .
That looks lower to me.
In other words, violent crime is down as a whole.
When did stop and frisk incidences begin to decline?
What was the effect of violent crime during that decrease?
How many stop and frisk incidences were there in 2013 vs 2014?
Which year had lower overall crime?
Which year had the lowest murders?
Crime. Not violent crime. If you look at the numbers, the decrease is fueled primarily by burglary (not a violent crime) with an almost 20% decrease. Stop & Frisk has a minimal impact on burglaries.
Add up the numbers for murder, rape, robbery, fel assault in your PDF under YTD
Last time I checked, 9336 > 8537.
Violent crime is down.
Racer, are you flailing a little bit? Take it easy. Deep breaths. It'll be ok.
What effect did stop and frisk have on violent crime?
Was there a direct correlation?
Do you want me to answer that for you?
LMMFAO!!!! Like a cheap flag in the wind!
Drops the mic.........
You may want to pick that back up and address the fact that violent crime rate has dropped despite stop and frisk ending.
Tucker, GA, USA
Unless there's simply a lag or whatever or someone's fooling around with stats (which by the way I think has happened before) , it seems like we can keep crime down *without* stop and frisk.
@ almost 3 years ago
Rose Hill, New York, NY
Re compstat manipulation here. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82818620120309?irpc=932
Hopefully that's not still happening now (report is based on 2010) because if it is, then we really don't know what's happening with crime
quick, someone roll their cell phone camera, racer x is brutalizing plc.
@ almost 3 years ago
although to defend myself from accusations of cheerleading (i bet plc had his butt buddy inexorable about now) I do find racers new mantra about the minority being protected from the majority weird
with regards to conversations we have had about voter id laws in the past.
on that note... "IF WE STILL HAD STOP AND FRISK WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=561_1429127057
I'm sorry but was that a midget blowing a guy on the subway?
I stand by the voter ID requirements.
We must protect the sanctity of the vote.
Only a fool or charlatan could make the claim that voter id harkens us back to jim crow days. In all the years that states have had the laws on the books, the predicted disenfranchisement never happened.
It's idiocy that people don't need ID to vote in this city. Although at least , NYS doesn't allow for no-fault absentee voting which is the real area for fraud.
i wasn't seeking to revive the debate, i just wanted to point out the disconnect. you two are taking a stance because of your tribalism, i have no doubt you understand the problem your position faces.
@ over 2 years ago
your "obtuse"ness, to take a line from shawshank redemption, is completely voluntary.
@ over 2 years ago
@ over 2 years ago
I read that a few days ago. So sad that he has such a horrible opinion of his own profession. But rising crime is a fact. And it ain't the cops that are committing these crimes.
I don't think he has a horrible opinion of the profession.
He just doesn't love it like a 4 year old loves his Mommy.
I guess to some saying that 85% of cops are either outright corrupt or corruptable isnt horrible. It reinforces the ignorance in some.
He speaks from his experience.
Or is experience not good enough for you now?
All of a sudden you respect personal experience? How convenient.
I respect his opinion but won't accept it as factual. I accept it as just what it is. One mans opinion.
I find it admirable that you're finally willing to accept others opinions. Even if itts only because you feel it somehow supports your opinion. Your horizons may one day be wide enough to accept opposing opinions.
There sure is a lot of smoke.
There might actually be a fire.
Not according to the courts. But who cares about the facts. Follow the smoke.
Keep believing the criminals. What could go wrong?
I like facts.
They sure are costing you a bit of money.
Body cams can help
Did you hear how they reduce claims of excessive force?
I wonder why?
You don't act like it.
Don't you mean savages?
There's an important word there.
criminals savages same thing.
But typically in a police misconduct case, once a lawyer decides to file it, that means the lawyer has investigated it and has come to the conclusion that it's sufficiently meritorious to spend time and resources on,"
he said. "The important thing is that the number of complaints skyrocketed over a five-year period. When you have that large an increase, it's got to tell you something."
Getting really smoky
I have no problem with body cams. But claims settled doesnt indicate guilt or innocence. It's usually cheaper to settle. But it's something the police unions have been long fighting.
"In 2014 narcotics cops in Brooklyn jumped a perfectly innocent woman and claimed she was doing a narcotic transaction. They discovered no transaction had taken place, but they didn’t like the woman’s attitude and
arrested her for disorderly conduct. You see this stuff all the time."
You see this stuff all the time.
"For those of us who work in civil rights litigation, we saw the volume of our work was going up and the majority of them were low-level cases that don’t attract media attention," he said. "They weren’t people being
beaten to a pulp or railroaded into false confessions. It was people being arrested because a cop didn’t like their attitude and wanted to run them through the system even though they knew the case would get thrown out."
Ahhh! Run...the smoke!
Who said that? What's his job?
"I've had cases of someone arrested for a controlled substance violation when he had in his pocket one pill of Motrin. I’ve had someone arrested for public urination when he was on dialysis and couldn’t urinate. You
couldn’t make this stuff up," Berger said. “It's a terrible epidemic and indicative of the stuff that’s going on that is causing so much public outrage at the moment.
So much smoke.
Can you breathe?
Oh, the ignorance.
These were actual cases.
You supposedly like those.
It's ok. Smoke is difficult to smell or see when performing self-proctoscopy.
Actual claims. Claims. Nothing proven. Just claims. Do you know the difference between a claim and a fact?
At dinner. I'll continue to school you another time.
$45 million a year (and growing) is a lot to settle for misconduct that didn't happen.
Technically, you are correct. No admission of guilt
Public urination for someone who can't pee...
I'd like to hear the explanation for how that one wasn't factual...
You might want to check your smoke detectors at home.
Because I care.
how many medical cases are settled without a trial.
can we assume most doctors are incompetent, based on the amount of suits awarded?
I'll bet without looking medical malpractice awards far exceed $45M annual.
@ over 2 years ago
Who said anything about competence?
Plc said just bc they were settled doesn't prove guilt.
The claims and resulting settlements say nothing about the facts of any given case. To post claims and try to pass them off as fact is laughable.
How did the person who couldn't pee get charged with public urination?
The facts of that case speak for themselves.
"People who have been truly hurt settle for money rather than social change, because they know that isn't going to happen anyway."
Why fight a case and get the details out into the public if you have a low likelihood of winning?
JP Morgan and US Bank didn't have to admit wrongdoing either.
Using the dialysis guy as an example...how do you fight that and expect to win?
Perfect case to just settle - even you can see that's a losing cause.
But yes, you are right that claims themselves mean nothing.
It's all about the trend. And the bass.
needs more cowbells
@ over 2 years ago
skål, does the same rules apply to medical malpractice suits.
You're too busy with the smoke and are totally ignoring the lack of fire. Ignoring reality. Hanging your hat on the claims made by savages. Who see an opportunity for an easy pay at and will say anything to get it.
When alleged abuse cases are actually put under the spotlight (actual court proceedings) The vast majority of officers are exonerated. The vast majority.
But let's focus on claims and allegations. To you they are fact. They produce smoke. Rarely fire, but who cares. You have smoke. I like facts, not smoke and mirrors.
2 tenth of 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of smoke to me.
I don't like you either.
srorriM & ekomS
@ over 2 years ago
It's weird how you have to go to school longer to cut people's hair than to be given a badge and a gun.
You don't like facts either.
Do you have an example or are you just throwing out bs per usual?
Post with your real account and I might respond.
@H2O - Yes. Most with real liability are settled out of court. For similar reasons.
@PLC - there you go with that "savages" term again. Do they become savages before or after found guilty?
What type of infraction makes them savages?
Selling a loosie?
Public urination when you can't pee?
Having a bad attitude?
Looking at a cop wrong?
Where is the line?
I'm glad you have no problem with body cams.
I'm curious though. Why has there been such a difference in excessive force claims areas that have instituted cameras?
Are the "savages" just making it all up?
*claims in areas
More smoke from a few weeks ago, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-muller-body-camera-data-shows-unnecessary-force-20150508-story.html
Another opinion piece (which you'll decry).
How much smoke does there have to be before you admit there **might** be a fire somewhere?
BTW - criticism doesn't mean we don't appreciate the great work they do. To paraphrase a Senator.
"If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they'll tell you that the difference between them and us is that
conservatives love cops and liberals hate cops.... They don't get it. We love cops just as much as they do. But in a different Way. You see, they love cops the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy. Liberals love cops like
To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved
one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world."
So you say I'm ignorant for seeing a lot smoke and looking for a fire.
So it can be put out.
Like an adult would do.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If the requirements for becoming a police officer were raised less minorities would become cops so you'd have more white cops! Man what a conundrum
The best advice for now would be no eye contact and for god sakes don't run and cover yourself with something pink for gods sake!
From Benghazi to Baltimore everybody was so much happier before Obama
Remember the Reagan years? The hippies we threw in jail? those were the days fire hoses mace rubber bullets real bullets
Was there a question there?
difference, liberals celebrate cop deaths and even offer bounties to loot, rob, kill.
how's Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit,.... doing today, after they said all their cops suck...
"Overall, crime is down over last year..."
@ over 2 years ago
"We saw this about the same time last year,” the mayor said.
“We had a spike that we had to deal with, but we pushed it back,” he said optimistically."
"We had real concerns, legitimate concerns last spring and we ended up with the best year on record in a generation in terms of lowering murder and lowering crime.”
seriously...thanks for posting that article you thought supported your position
you may want to read the next one prior to posting it.
It might not say what you think it says.
You can't always go with that big splashy emotional headline.
Oh yes. This article is about how crime is down. New Yorkers are safer. Everything is under control. That's exactly what the article is about.
We had a spike but we pushed it back?!
How do you do that go back in time? Sounds like code words for fudging the numbers
We also had an incredible decrease in terrorist activity in the United States since George Bush went in (alone) to Iraq
Very brave man, an American hero for sure Ronald Reagan too-Bill Clinton was getting his weiner sucked in the same office!
DV has historically been a big problem with police. As have alcoholism and suicide. I believe the same can be said for the AA community. It's a sad statistic.
But despite a 2012 article about the DV problem with police, murders and shootings are still way up in NYC.
You mean from last year's historic low...a low reached after ending the unconstitutional practice of stop and frisk?
Can you compare this year's figures to the figures of when stop and frisk was in place?
A settled case and a chat forum? Really?
Lots of frisking.
Take a joke.
I chat with you, don't I?
She does have some nice tata's though.
An editorial from a liberal rag nonetheless.
"Fear has taken hold of the New York Police Department. The city’s cops have grown afraid to do their jobs."
holy shït...that's funny!
Atlanta, GA 30339, USA
hilarious! Just not so much for the people dying.
it's just too bad the people paid to protect them are too terrified to do their jobs
Sandy Springs, GA, USA
It is. You do understand that it's not a fear of being physically hurt or scared of the bad guy.
"While they will readily risk their lives to disarm a bullet-spraying gunman, they will not risk their careers by stopping, and potentially frisking, that same criminal before he opens fire."
It's a completely different fear. A fear of losing their livelihood for doing their jobs correctly. An entirely different kind of fear. One that only causes crime to rise.
They shouldn't stop anyone without a reasonable cause they can articulate.
...as per the law.
Lindbergh, Atlanta, GA
That goddåmn Constitution keeps getting in the way of these cowards police work!
It's not the constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled SQF as constitutional. It's the liberals in this city that have gotten in the way of good police work.
I didn't realize the liberals of New York were able to supersede the authority of the Supreme Court.
How very powerful they must be.
Piedmont Heights, Atlanta, GA
It's no wonder the cops are terrified.
They're dealing with incredibly powerful liberals.
You've obviously never been to NY
Do you ever get tired of just making shït up in a desperate attempt to prove your blatantly wrong argument?
North Druid Hills, GA, USA
What exactly is my "blatantly wrong argument"?
What exactly did I make up?
Your blatantly wrong argument is that police of New York can no longer do their jobs because of the passage of New York Local Law 71.
North Decatur, GA, USA
You made up a claim that a cop couldn't question a suspect in a hypothetical scenario you created.
I ask again...what authority have police lost as a result of Local Law 71?
Are Terry searches no longer permissible in NYC?
Are you suggesting that the New York City Council has overruled the Supreme Court ruling in Terry v Ohio?
You think that the law has no effect on police work. Articles like these show a different opinion. The numbers back it up. But you are free to opine as you wish. Gun crime is up. Thats a fact.
Have you read Local Law 71?
What portion(s), specifically, do you disagree with?
It's not my argument alone. That argument is shared by the men and women who do the jab day in and day out. I'm sorry that you disagree. Maybe you know something they don't.
Thats the problem.
They should be doing less jabbing, and more policing.
A cop COULD question a suspect in that scenario. But that stop may cost him. Because of recently passed legislation. Cops are deciding NOT to make the stops. Because of that reason.
So I don't see your blatantly wrong assertion.
Nice dodge of all questions asked.
Keep squirming, and avoiding directly addressing the City Ordinance.
I was posting. I didnt get a chance to see your question.
You continue to assert that the law implies that a police officer would be forced by the new law to disregard witness statements.
That's simply not true.
Please show me where the law states that.
“[Racial or ethnic]Bias-based profiling” means an act of a member of the force of the
police department or other law enforcement officer that relies on actual or perceived race,
[ethnicity, religion or] national origin, color, creed, age, alienage or citizenship status, gender,
sexual orientation, disability, or housing status as the determinative factor in
well...now you've seen my questions.
feel free to address them
Or...are you as terrified as the police of NYC?
initiating lawenforcement action against an individual, rather than an individual’s behavior or other informationor circumstances that links a person or persons
[of a particular race, ethnicity, religion national origin] to suspected unlawful activity"
exactly what I said.
"other information or circumstances that links a person to suspected unlawful activity".
witness testimony is the aforementioned " other information
you're blatantly wrong
I'm not going to lose my ability to put food on my table by doing my job correctly. Why would I be terrified?
this law creates police accountability.
And they hate it.
Because they hate the idea of being held accountable for their actions.
If the witness testimony is only the race/gender, it's not "other information".
Thank you for your opinion. 35,000 police officers who actually do the job disagree with you. As do I. It's all good. Life is like that sometimes.
The witness testimony in your scenario was description of a suspect who committed a criminal act.
It absolutely qualifies as the "other information".
It is a witnesses description of a suspect.
Where does the law state that witness statements regarding race must be disregarded.
But the information is only race. Not good enough. The PO can stop them. Then get sued. They are choosing not to put themselves in that position. I agree with them
you're completely and utterly wrong
You don't. Life goes on. Murder goes up. Shootings go up. But Racer still believes what he wants to believe.
The law says the cops can't use race as their determinative reason for stopping someone.
I'm not wrong. You just don't agree with the Police Officers. That doesn't make them wrong or you right. Or vice versa. You have a problem with that.
Precisely. They cant stop someone based on only knowing their race.
In your scenario, the cop would only be guilty of racial discrimination of the victim told the police "Someone mugged me, and ran around that corner!"
...Then the cops run around the corner and find a group of 20 white guys and 1 black guys, and scream "Get your black åss on the ground, you dirty nïgger!"
In my scenario, what information do they have about the suspect? Race. That's it. Regardless of where they obtained the information, race is all they have.
THAT would be racial profiling.
But that's not what your scenario stated.
They may not stop if all they have is race. Where in the law does it say that 3rd party account of race is acceptable?
In your scenario, the witness gave a description of the suspect.
The police can use that "other information" to make a stop.
Race is not other information. Are you saying they cant use race unless they know the race?
This whole conversation is amusing
Because the witness statement gives them an articulable suspicion.
...as required by law.
As always has been required by law.
Rant and rave and claim knowledge all you wish. The truth is where the rubber meets the road. SQF is constitutional and that has been removed from the NYPD arsenal.
Look at the numbers.
Nothing has changed in that regard.
As a result, gun violence is up. SQF down. Gun violence up. Murder up. Murder with guns up.
A year or two ago a gun dealer was arrested. He was quoted as saying that he would not carry the gun to the buyer because he was afraid of the police stopping him.
The liberals in NYC have removed that fear. He, and other savages like him, are now free to carry without fear.
Argue what you want. Think you know better than the cops, their unions and their lawyers. The facts of less people stopped and more people dead remains.
"SQF is constitutional and that has been removed from the NYPD arsenal."
Are you fücking retarded?
Terry searches are now illegal in NYC?
They are not illegal in a criminal sense. They're not authorized and can result in civil action against the PO.
Have you read the law? It's in there. I think you'll find it interesting. Let me know if there's a part you can't understand.
I understand it completely.
I don't understand why you're making up lies that don't exist in the law.
(I can't explain the whole thing to you though. No time)
Me and the 35,000 strong police department.
Where is it in the law?
Please quote it.
But you know better. Of course.
I can't continue to spoon feed you. You're going to have to do some leg work yourself.
And even if I do, you'll only claim the words don't say what they say. Round and round we go.
As SQF goes down
And murders go up
no...not the return of liberty to the citizens of NYC!
Anything but that!
yes! liberty! WOOHOO! (Just that the dead ones ain't enjoying too much liberty)
You prefer higher crime over less SQF. I don't
It's odd but most of the crimes were committed by African Americans against African Americans in predominately African American neighborhoods. Perhaps maybe the police
Should concentrate more on just frisking African Americans wouldn't that make sense? We don't see African Americans much in Strongsville but when we do we stop and frisk them
I blame the plight of the African American on the adult African American male , does that not make sense could I be wrong? Could it be my fault? Could it be someone else's fault other than African American males?
Wait until Obama releases all these quantanamo Bay ####s and they start killing people we won't worry too much about what's going on in the African American communities (which I blame on the adult African American male)
I prefer less of this.
Bethlehem, GA 30620, USA
I orefer less of this http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2015/05/28/police-seek-two-suspects-in-shooting-death-of-14-year-old-bronx-boy.html
And less of this http://7online.com/news/woman-teen-bystanders-shot-by-man-on-bike-in-brooklyn/717973/
And less of this http://7online.com/news/police-investigate-killings-at-3-nyc-public-housing-projects-overnight/756160/
And less of this http://www.thewrap.com/rapper-chinx-killed-in-drive-by-shooting-in-new-york-city/
I'd take a smart mouthed cop who doesnt arrest the guys who got mouthy with hith him than any of these stories.
BTW, all in NYC in the past few weeks. When discussing NYC policy I prefer to keep the examples in NYC.
thump up for plc
@ over 2 years ago
Interesting article. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/08/the_new_york_stop_and_frisk_opinion_is_unpersuasive_and_poorly_reasoned.html
not that interesting
The article confirms exactly what I've been saying all along.
"a police officer may briefly stop, question, and frisk a person if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts (rather than vague hunches), that the person is engaged in criminal activity or poses a danger to others."
NYC Police can still conduct Terry searches.
They always have been able to. They haven't lost any authority.
Cherry picking is awesome. You copied the portion that describes terry. Thats great. But not what the article is about. You should read the whole thing. It is, in fact, interesting.
NYC can conduct these stops. But these stops may result in a loss of income. Is it worth the risk? POs are saying no in a loud voice. Even if the guy from Georgia disagrees. And people die. Great job Deblasio!
"But it is preposterous to maintain, as Scheindlin does, that when race is included in a suspect description for a particular set of crimes, however generalized, it may not form the outer parameter of who gets stopped
for those crimes."
It's just too bad that your most recent article completely invalidates itself.
Written in 2013, and forecasting that the the end of stop and frisk would cause violent to rise.
Unfortunately for the author...2014 was a historic low for NYC violent crime.
I find it that you've resorted to implying that I'm geographically ill-equipped to weigh in on the topic.
How is the fact that I'm in Georgia invalidate my opinion of the issues in NYC?
Those Northerners in 1860 didn't understand life in the South.
They couldn't possibly have a valid opinion regarding slavery!
How can a valid Terry stop conducted by a NYPD officer result in a loss of income?
Can you give an example of this having occurred?
Written in 2013, forecasting an increase violence, apparently correctly, is a fail? Have you seen the NYC murder rate? Shooting incident rate? Are you really going to ignore the here and now?
I never said you're not capable of having an opinion. But comparing NYCs SQF policy to the souths ever lasting love of slavery is a little ridiculous. To me.
I never compared stop and frisk to slavery.
I compared your attempt to geographically invalidate opposing viewpoints to current injustice with a well known event of previous injustice.
And I agree...your implications that someone's opinion is invalid because they're not physically in the location off the injustice is ridiculous.
Thanks for agreeing.
there was an increase in crime after the end of stop and frisk?
You're just wrong.
Theres an increase in shootings. An increase in murders.
I didnt say an increase in crime. Read before you react.
you tend to respond to points not made by anyone in a pathetic attempt to one up. instead of actually conversing. its kinda funny. like youre talking to yoiurself.
Was there an increase in 2012? when the stop and frisk incidences plummeted?
Was there an increase in 2013?
when the stop and frisk incidences again declined?
How about 2014?
is there an increase now?
All 7 major felony categories dropped steadily from 2011 to 2014...despite the fact that the number of stop and frisk plummeted by more than 90%.
All of the data contradicts the lies you've been spouting.
again youre having your own conversation
Look at the numbers.
Lets simplify it for you. Is SQF = to Terry stops?
You never addressed my questioning of you're latest wrong assertion.
How can a valid Terry stop conducted by a NYPD officer result in a loss of income?
Can you cite an example of this having occurred?
Or are you just continuing to make shït up?
Stop and frisk is not the equivalent of a Terry stop.
Terry stops are constitutional.
Stop and frisk is not.
yes, I made up every article I posted. I made up the law. I made up the higher murder rates and higher shooting numbers. I made up the FACT that these have gone up since SQF was effectively stopped by a liberal
administration in NYC
You got me. I made it all up.
Ill go tell the victims that Im sorry for making up their losses. Ill go to all the cops who are sued on a daily basis with frivolous lawsuits that Im sorry I made that up.
Murders have decreased.
2014 was the lowest in decades.
You're making shït up.
Ill apologize to the officers but on desk duty unable to earn overtime because some savage felt offended that Im sorry I made it all up.
You got me all figured out!
Damn! I thought I would get away with telling people that murders were up. When in fact, according to racer, the dude from Georgia, theyre not.
"Murders in New York fell to 328 in 2014, the fewest since the New York Police Department started keeping reliable numbers in 1963."
You're a fücking liar.
You're making shït up.
I almost got away with it. Murder down in 2014 has as much to do with this as murder being up in 1990.
Welcome to the here and now Where PLC can singlehandedly make an entire department and an entire city think that murders and gun violence is up when the dude from georgia says theyre not. Silly me!
Im sure the families of the murders victims will take solace in the truth that theyre loved one is not actually dead.
It's June 7, 2015. You know that, don't you?
If you're going to console the murder victim's families...you'll have frewer families to speak with than ever.
Because last year was a historic low.
Again, for some unknown reason, you bring up the fact that I'm in Georgia.
What relevance does that fact have on this discussion?
My geographic location has zero impact on the fact that the murder rate in NYC hit a historic low in 2014.
...but feel free to continue flailing.
Not fewer families than ever. Last year there would have been fewer families. Are you stuck in time? How can you completely ignore the here and now? It's indicative of your mindset. Facts be damned.
The dude in Georgia magically makes today's number POOF disappear under the allusion of last years numbers.
ohhhhhhh...you wanna do a snapshot...not actual trends of relevant data
I'm sorry if my long term comparison of annual data since the end of stop and frisk contradicted your attempt at cherry picking data.
By the way...was there an increase in the murder rate in the beginning of last year?
An increase that was offset by a lower rate the rest of the year?
A year that ended in a historic low murder rate?
Despite the end of stop and frisk?
So...you only wanna discuss a narrow timeframe that matches your position.
...but you are trying to ignore the big picture that completely refutes it.
Your desire to be right overrides any ability to be civil. I'm done here. Until the next batch of information relevant to this discussion arises. Have a great day in Georgia.
I don't blame you.
Running away from this thread is the best strategy you could possibly adopt at this time.
Now you can hide from this thread and hope that the terrified cops of NYC continue to behave childishly and refuse to perform their taxpayer funded duty.
That way you don't have to address the points of your argument that have been summarily dismissed as blatantly wrong.
Failure of the NYC school system?
Since we're going international
I have investigated myself and found I have done nothing wrong.
479. Wow. How many were decent innocent law abiding citizens?
I have investigated myself and I have found I have done nothing wrong. The local state and federal investigators as well as the courts have agreed. But a guy from MN and. a guy from GA disagree. Oh what shall we do?
President Not Sure
@ over 2 years ago
Jeez. That's a little rough. Racer and skal are only expressing their opinions.
Batting 1.000 is tough. It happens all the time.
Who's batting 1.000?
All you gotta see is one officer arrested to kill that silly notion.
"...police morale is at an all-time low and they are now worried about being...recorded...while trying to do their jobs..."
why would the cops be worried about that?
Lawrenceville, GA 30045, USA
These guys seem like an anxious group of people.
Always scared and worried.
"Short-term spikes are statistically unreliable, especially if they come after a long-term decline, and could just be a blip"
That's a great article, PLC.
"A wider window of statistics would be much more reliable than a handful of figures representing January to May of this year."
OMG, that's deliciously ironic that you posted this article...after me having just humiliated you for this very topic!
"It is usually a mistake to declare a trend based on a few months of figures"
If VoterMap had a contest for users posting articles based solely on the headline, despite the fact that the story contradicts their viewpoint...PLC would be the Undisputed Champion!
god, you're a schmuck
You're funny. Arguing with yourself.
All this garbage you cherry pick has nothing to do with my opinion. But you think you can redefine my opinion to fit your weak argument against it.
You're funny. I live it. Your incessant need of superiority tells me a lot about you. Mostly that you would never speak to anyone like this face to face. guaranteed.
I love it.
swing by next time you're in Georgia.
I'll prove you wrong...again.
I'm getting some work done. I'll be back to correct you later.
if you have a problem with being called a schmuck...you may wanna consider not being such a schmuck
Those latrines ain't gonna scrub themselves.
I hope you can one day get past your childish antics. Good conversation might follow. Maybe when you grow up.
Just remember, the liberal NYC council, together with the liberal mayor and a liberal judge took away an important tool from the NYPD. Following this, stops have gone way down & Murders and shootings have gone way up.
Those are facts.
Point blank period.
All this other nonsense you're spewing means nothing.
You think the cops are being crybabies. Great. That's your opinion. Some dude from Georgia. Completely irrelevant.
Stops went down last year.
Murder still dropped.
Those are facts.
True. 2014. Last year. This year stops went WAY down. Murders are up. Facts.
Policy changes rarely show immediate impact.
Stops have been dropping dramatically for YEARS.
Crime has continued to decline.
Those are facts
Murders were up this time last year.
People jumped to conclusions.
They didn't pan out.
The city ended up with the lowest murder rate record.
Those are facts.
A year ago murders were up. Not as much as they are now but they were up. Still doesn't change the FACT that they're up now. So are shootings. So is gun crime. Now. Today. 2015. Fact. Now.
Policy change often take years before results can be seen.
Today's citizen seems to have an unrealistic expectation of immediate results. Blame the Internet. Unrealistic expectations.
The NYPD police commissioner agrees with you. I'm sure politics has nothing to do with it. http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150608/civic-center/stop-and-frisk-has-little-impact-on-crime-rate-bratton-says
actually he agrees with you. "little impact" that's not no impact. you state it has a little impact, you directly blame it for an embellished reason though, no other factors for this "little impact"
Adam Stephens, WV, USA
I cannot believe the chicks on Fox News! Any guy who says I don't watch Fox is a freaking homo I jerk off turn on Fox News and I want to jerk off again and they're smart!
And Greta Van Susteren is a total m*** m***
and check this out!
A couple of more murders in the last 24 hours. Old NYC is coming back!
PLC tactical rolls back into the thread.
My tactical roll days are long over. Thank god!
Just heard on the news that there were 44 shootings in the city over the last week. Not counting the 4 people shot this morning. Not sure what the means but it sounds like a lot. The blip continues.
meh...I've seen funnier
Yeah. I didn't think it was the funniest thing I've ever seen. But it's funny. Which is why I posted "funny" and not "the funniest thing he guy from Georgia will ever see"
I did think it was hilarious that the cops were falsely blaming the end of stop and frisk for an increase in crime, even though the practice has been statistically proven to have little effect on actual crime...
Norcross, GA 30092, USA
...but they failed to mention the fact that NYC cops have been refusing to uphold their sworn duty.
I also found it very funny that they were upset that they could no longer stop and question a citizen without being able to articulate a reason for the stop.
that part was pretty funny
Norcross, GA, USA
But it's not Key and Peele funny.
Those guys are hysterical!
Says the guy from Georgia. Understood.
Hysterical might be a stretch. I wonder if he beats himself up afterwards for failing his own son. That would be an awesome sequel.
"statistically proven to have little effect on actual crime" LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"That would bee an awesome sequel." LMNOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gwinnett Village, GA, USA
It's humorous that these cops are frustrated because they're being forced to obey the Constitution.
The NY Attorney General office report agrees with the dude from Georgia.
Tucker, GA 30084, USA
Crime data concurs with the distinguished gentleman from the great state of Georgia.
You need to update your calendar. We are currently in 2015.
I believe Georgia is also.
Terrified cops refusing to do their jobs agree with you.
this article is from 2015
It tells how the terrified NYPD officers, frustrated that the predicted cringe wave of 2014 never occurred, have been refusing to do their jobs in a desperate attempt to prove their false narrative.
I'd rather be have the brave men and women of the NYPD on my side than a liberal AG or some guy from Georgia. Especially on issues involving NYC and the politics of policing here.
By simply not doing their taxpayer funded jobs, the cops of NYC can create a perception of a crime wave.
you must be giddy with how maturely the Boys in Blue handle their frustration
They are terrified. Scared. Frightful. Worried. Not of the bad guys. They've been handling them for ages. Their concern is the liberal politics thats keeping them from doing their jobs.
Who predicted a "cringe wave of 2014"?
Refusing to do your job is now a qualifier for courage?
I guess things really are different up North.
Down South that's considered the action of püssies.
They are doing their jobs the way they have been instructed to. This administration prefers the reactive approach. The results will tell if they are correct. So far, it's not looking good for them.
Those type of cowardly actions will get you fired and run out of town down here.
I'm surprised at your admiration for such cowardice.
I highly admire the great work these guys do day in and day out. Its a shame the administration is handcuffing them.
We obviously have different opinions of cowardice. Not surprisingly.
I don't think NY's finest could hack it in Georgia.
Stop and frisk incidences have been declining for 4 years.
...but crime continued to drop
I wonder how crime in NYC compares to crime in Stone Mountain? Where the police do their jobs bravely!
It wasn't until the NYPD went on a self imposed, ill advised hiatus of their responsibilities that crime increased.
They don't seem to have public safety as their intention.
Yeah, NYs finest wouldn't make it there. They'd only make it safer.
We tolerate our Constitutional rights being trampled.
We'd never put up with that bullshït.
Well, Lets see. 1, SCOTUS said SQF is constitutional. 2, You'd never put up with that bullsh!t. You'd just put up with higher crime. More victims. Tells a lot about Georgians.
Why do you tolerate your constitutional rights being trampled?
When did SCOTUS say SQF is constitutional?
So...you're sticking too your outlandish claim that the New York City Council has passed a local ordinance that has struck down a Supreme Court ruling?
...and that Terry stops are no longer permissible in NYC?
Well, I guess that settles it.
...you're officially retarded.
Here we go again. That's the best you can do. A differing opinion doesnt lead to a discussion with you. It leads to an insult. Why? Because thats the best you can do.
Either silly name calling or some gay accusation. That's it. Nothing else.
That tell a lot about you. And it's sad.
But just like this thread started. With you telling a lie, unable to support it. Then result to insults.
You started wrong. Claiming the 4th amendment specifically protects us from "unwarranted" searches. You can be searched. Without a warrant. In America. And it's legal. In certain circumstances.
Buuuuuuut, I told you that. And proved it. And you still didnt and dont get it.
And your inability to comprehend the law continues till today. And I try to have a reasonable conversation. Discuss the case law. The rulings. And whats your response?
"Well, I guess that settles it. ...you're officially retarded."
I hope your intellect is a bit higher than that in person. I think this is all part of your keyboard bravado that you like to portray. I'm not sure why, nor will I speculate.
Silly me. I think one day you'll grow up. Maybe today he'll actually converse. Debate. Without the insults. And bam, There you go.
But I have faith in mankind. I'll educate you one way or the other.
In the meantime please continue to fabricate my opinion to best suit your mode of attack. Truth be damned in Stone Mountain. Where the cops are better but crime is higher.
Keep attacking me, Ill keep educating you. Keyboard tough guy from Georgia whos an expert on NYC politics and policy. On Police tactics. He read up on it. that makes him an expert.
FYI, SQF is a terry stop. No matter what names you choose to throw out today.
I gotta get lunch. Ill school you some more in a few.
So...you're sticking with your assertion that Terry stops, as ruled legal by the Supreme Court, are no longer valid in NYC?
...and you claim that I'M the unreasonable one thing this debate?
I take it back.
You're not retarded.
not ONLY, anyway
you're delusional AND retarded
You make up wild and unfounded allegations. You make ridiculous unsubstantiated claims, then run from the thread whenever you get called out for being a blatant liar.
You refuse to answer simple questions that clearly refute your absurd position.
When you do stick around to answer your opponents, you provide no evidence to support your position.
You just double down on the same baseless claims, and get all butt hurt when I tell you how stupid you are.
Please explain the difference between a terry stop and SQF?
oh that video was hilarious plc!
Identify yourself: "oh by the way im a retired sergeant."
"homicides are up 60%" [bogus number even by your sources]
and the glaring lack of intelligences based on a "see something, say something campaign." stop and frisk is predicated on the fact you have no reason at all to stop someone, if someone saw something that's just cause.
that's the difference, you hold that without just cause crime can be stopped, and the people not doing anything being stopped[harassed] is justified simply by the small amount of crime potentially stopped.
Maybe this is what he meant? I dont know when this was filmed. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/murders-nyc-60-time-year-article-1.2235101
stop hiding the fact that stop and frisk is stopping people without just cause.
That's what happens when the cops refuse to do their jobs.
Racer, please explain the difference between a terry stop and SQF?
Josh, that is not a fact.
To debate this we would need to define "just cause".
Lets give an example. An individual walking late at night in an area known for drug sales, makes eye contact with a police officer walking in his direction. The individual suddenly turns and crosses the street.
May the Police approach him to talk to him?
May they ask him his name and why he's in the area?
(While we await Racers answer)
no, you'd be indicted for harassment & racism
The police may approach and talk to anyone.
The citizen in your hypothetical scenario, however, is under no legal obligation to answer police questions...or even stop for the police.
Unprovoked flight from police doesn't by itself create reasonable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop.
The police must demonstrate a particularized and objective basis for suspecting a person of criminal activity.
The cops can approach him, but because there's no articulable suspicion that the he's engaged in criminal activity, they have no right to detain him.
He can continue, unobstructed, on his way.
They can ask him his name, but as New York doesn't have a stop and identify statute, he doesn't have to identify himself to them.
He can remain silent, and go about his business without being harassed by the police.
Do you think they should be able to stop and question (harass) the individual in your scenario based off of the information you've provided?
how about if he's got a bag of white powder sticking out of his shirt pocket? that seems pretty particular.
@ over 2 years ago
Cerritos, CA, USA
Its not what my opinion is. It's what the courts opinion is.
In that scenario a police officer may approach and ask questions of the individual. And yes, the individual is free to not answer questions and is free to walk away when he wishes.
But the officer is not wrong for approaching and asking.
(In NYC, the individual can claim the stop was based on race and sue the officer as a result.)
Where an officer in the above scenario approaches mr georgia and mr georgia walks away, would that be considered a SQF/Terry stop?
No, it would not
a SQF/Terry stop is a detainable stop where the individual is not free to go but the stop must be brief in nature. For these, reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is or is about to occur is necessary.
A crime need not have been committed for a stop, but a mere hunch or feeling is not enough for a SQF/Terry stop.
The issue in NYC is that those stopped may sue if they feel they were targeted by their race. The new law has established that for them.
So if the PO puts down that the person was stopped based on a description of race, he'll be sued. Because race was a primary factor in the stop.
So, don't stop people because of their race!
Stop them because you can articulate a reasonable suspicion that they were committing a crime!
Jesus Fücking Rodriguez!
Quit harassing people that you don't like.
And don't pretend that you don't know the difference between stopping someone detaining them.
A Terry stop is a detainment...not a stop.
But....... That's what the police have been doing. Stopping people based on a reasonable suspicion they've have committed, are committing or are about to commit a crime. They haven't been stopping people based on race.
Sid you just say a terry stop is not a stop?
A Terry stop is a legal detainment, with a articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
That's vastly different than a cop just approaching someone with no justifiable cause (ie your scenario).
The term "stop" has no legal significance.
Police authority is exercised by "detaining" or "arresting" suspects.
Anything else has no binding authority.
Cop "I asked you to stop."
Citizen "Am I being detained?"
I thought you said a Terry stop is not a stop. My bad.
In my scenario a PO has every right to approach the individual and say "good evening. What are you doing around here". The question here is whether the police have the right to do this. They do.
Flex Your Rights
What a fücking àsshole!!!the cop's trying to do his job. he'd rather be at home and he has to deal with this stupid bïtch of a man?
Say some drunk sneaks through or around a DUI stop then runs over somebody's four year old child.You blame the cops right?
I love it when criminals and cop haters have to call the cops! When was the last time you were in fear for your safety? If its the cops go home if its some thug call the cops
the cop should have called the kids mom, in Baltimore, first
oops, was the kid white or black? maybe having a race identity issue.
@PLC - do you think the police in your scenario should have the legal authority to demand the man's ID and search him?
No I do not. I believe the cop should, and does have the right to ask him for ID and inquire as to his travels and reasons for being there. From the info in the scenario, no search would be authorized or needed.
IF, the individual does answer questions, have the police violated his rights?
With that info they have no right to demand the info or conduct a search. Additional factors may change that.
Those big scary liberals.
I'm sure they're enabling crime much more than cops unwilling to do their jobs. What impeccable logic.
And if they can't think of a reason to stop you, they can always make something up...
It's not clear if the recent uptick is a blip (which it could be) or something more. It's indeed possible that there might be a lag time for a crime increase. But maybe just a blip. I don't think there's enough of a time frame to tell
@ over 2 years ago
Cops are more than willing to do their jobs. The way their instructed to. They're being told to be less proactive and they are. Following orders makes them wrong?
No. They're not.
The cops of NYC are just as immature as you.
Just like you, when they get their feelings hurt, they run away and say they refuse to play along.
They're intentionally refusing to do their jobs.
Even the number of traffic tickets has plummeted due to the juvenile behaviour of the Babies in Blue.
They're intentionally trying to allow crime to increase in a futile effort to show that their position is correct.
it's like the story of the bird in The boys hand...is it alive or dead?
It's whatever you choose it to be?
Is crime in NYC going to increase or decrease?
It's whatever the cops choose.
Unfortunately...right now...the cops are choosing to allow it to increase.
Shame on them.
I don't agree with your opinion.
It's not my opinion that the cops are writing fewer tickets. That's a fact.
Not only stop and frisk is being affected by the cops refusal to do their jobs.
They're refusing to write traffic and parking tickets also.
These guys aren't even smart enough to hide their blatant refusal to perform the duties of their taxpayer-funded jobs.
Nice cops you got up there, pal.
the cops showing us a thing or two for a change!(zero increase in crime here in Strongsville for obvious reasons) great police force.
What you're disagreeing with isn't an opinion.
it's a fact
...and you disagree with it because you're a lapdog.
As long as crime stays in certain areas what is there to worry about?
Work hard use your head move out of stay out of those areas.How simple could that be, you want this any easier? Now let's get back to talking about men marrying each other
Ugh! Another one who doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion. ####ing aggravating!
"The cops of NYC are just as immature as you" OPINION
"Just like you, when they get their feelings hurt, they run away and say they refuse to play along." OPINION
"They're intentionally refusing to do their jobs. Even the number of traffic tickets has plummeted due to the juvenile behaviour of the Babies in Blue." OPINION
"They're intentionally trying to allow crime to increase in a futile effort to show that their position is correct." OPINION
"Is crime in NYC going to increase or decrease? It's whatever the cops choose." OPINION
"Unfortunately...right now...the cops are choosing to allow it to increase." OPINION.
Not one single thing you said is factual. Not one. Should we go over the differences between a fact and an opinion?
Do you have anything that would prove you assertion that cops aren't writing tickets? Please provide something current. An article from 6 months ago isn't current.
"It's not my opinion that the cops are writing fewer tickets. That's a fact." You state. "Are writing fewer" indicates currently. I am not aware of this but it may be correct. Prove it.
You wrote it so you must know. You must have something better than a hunch or old data. You must have that empirical data. LMMFAO!!!
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
That would deprive you of the opportunity to learn something.
you're such a predictable fücking schmuck
As are you son, as are you.
It's cool to see you have such a strong opinion on something though. Too bad it's based on nothing. Absolutely nothing.
in the most ironic of all incidents...literally just got a phone call from my local Fraternal Order of Police asking for another contribution.
I upped my annual contribution...for the 5th straight year.
He's coming by to pick up a check this afternoon.
Wow! That check gives you amazing insight.
"I know what I'm talking about. I write a check to the FOP!"
"That's empirical evidence!"
"Look at me! I am racer. I know the hearts of 35,000 men and women 1,000 miles away whom I've never met because I write a check to the local FOP!"
Wow! Really. Wow! That's all I can say.
if I'm around the office when their rep comes by this afternoon, I'll show him this discussion and ask his opinion of the situation in NYC
I'll do the same when the janitor stops by.
You should probably quit whining about trying to have an adult conversation.
@PLC - Let us know how the conversation goes with your boss.
And like I said before, the compstat data has in fact been toyed with (years ago) so no clue if that's still being done or done again , although I guess there's only so much you can fake until things get too obvious.
Skal, maybe you should start having adult conversations. Ive been quite civil in all of this. But please feel free to jump on one comment while ignoring all the rest.
Maybe civil conversation isn't possible on VM. Posters like Racer, Josh and Skal make it so. That's tragic. Posters like AMI, JC and Drew try but the Racers just continue to insist on juvenile behavior.
Maybe it's time for another VM break.
I got a parking ticket in Brooklyn last Saturday. $35
maybe they're just ticketing out of state r's though
@PLC - https://imgflip.com/i/e9ydq
The problem with trying to have an adult conversation with you is that when you are asked to defend something or your "facts" are challenged, you either:
1) Run away
2) Whine that something you said was taken out of
3) Use fallacious appeals to authority
4) Suggest that our location of residence invalidates anything opinion we have on the matter
You really can't say that. You never hang around long enough.
do you know the difference between facts and opinions?
You and the others like you get frustrated that I and others like me won't change our opinions to match yours. That's your first problem. Stop trying to convince people that your opinion is "right" and differing opinions
I do hang around long enough. This thread is almost 1000 posts and I've been here the whole time.
I've been around in the other threads where you've run.
I've continued posting there while you disappear.
ie, I say I like the color red. Racer will call me an idiot for not knowing that blue is obviously the best color. You will periodically stop in and snipe about some inane comment. Racer will claim victory. You laugh.
this is what you consider adult conversation. I disagree.
That's not quite how these conversations go, but that clarifies a lot.
I don't get frustrated that you won't change your opinion. I didn't think that'd ever be possible.
However, reasonable people will at least be able to admit when the other side has valid concerns.
In all of these threads, I can't say I've seen you do this once.
I've done it. Racer has done it.
That's part of having an adult conversation.
That's why paraphrased the "the way a 4-year old loves his mommy" quote.
That's not an adult way to look at things, but that's how you've presented yourself.
But of course that's what you see. I'm not surprised. You see what you want to see. I could provide examples and you'd either dials appear or change the topic.
You have only been sniping for the most part here. So please show me an example of Racer doing this.
I want to see those and I'll address them right here.
While you are digging, if you could find one of those times you've acknowledged a valid point made by the other side, that'd be great.
Racer's example was from a debate thread I had with him a while back. I believe we were talking about voting rights and splitting hairs between classification of the US political system structure.
He's also done this several times on threads discussing welfare benefits.
So nowhere here on this thread? Hmm. Interesting.
If you wish, see the conversation I had with JC recently. Completely civil. We disagreed but it didnt result in the juvenile attacks that has become common with you and racer.
I cant understand why you prefer the name calling contests. Why you dont call out lies that seem to bolster your side. Why you choose to snipe.
This hasn't been the only thread on this topic. Remember H2O's thread that was deleted?
I believe it was there. Interesting indeed. I wish that thread was still around.
Name one of my common juvenile attacks.
I look back on this thread and cringe. From the beginning where racer saw the word unwarranted in the constitution to where josh saw the 60% claim as a lie. Just pass the lies and dont look back.
You have fallen off. You used to be one of the more respectable posters here. These past few months have led me to believe you're a spoof of the original Skal. And not only you.
I'm the same Skal that was in the espn ff league.
Perhaps it's not us, it's you.
The 60% comment by Josh shows he understands how statistics can be manipulated to fit an argument.
Pick a high week and compare it to a low week - bam! 60% increase.
It's one of the oldest statistical tricks in the book.
Thats not what he said
Perhaps it's me. If this was an issue with everyone, I might agree. But I don't.
"oh that video was hilarious plc! Identify yourself: "oh by the way im a retired sergeant." "homicides are up 60%" [bogus number even by your sources]"
"The 60% comment by Josh shows he understands how statistics can be manipulated to fit an argument. Pick a high week and compare it to a low week - bam! 60% increase."
And my totally reasonable response?
"Maybe this is what he meant? I dont know when this was filmed. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/murders-nyc-60-time-year-article-1.2235101"
So what I see is you making every attempt to justify those on "your side" with a false narrative that would make me look like I'm completely unreasonable and Josh is completely reasonable.
Lets reword his comment into something he didnt say at all.
But maybe its me. Maybe his comment was totally about him understanding the manipulation of statistics.
Maybe the constitution does say the people "have the right to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure"
Although it doesnt.
Cherrypicking one week with high # and a week with a low #. Like the article describes.
Isn't that exactly the statistical manipulation I just described?
Maybe claiming that 35,000 men and women of the NYPD are cowards is a factual statement. And disagreeing is unreasonable. Maybe.
This isn't about what manipulation is or isnt. This is about Joshs statement. Is it not? Where he claims its bogus. Is it not. Did I miss his statistic manipulation comment? Or would you like to move the goal posts a bit
If they compared a week with 2 murders this year to one 1 with murder last year, that would be a 100% increase.
But just as bogus/sensational.
I agree. Is that what we're talking about now? I didnt get the topic shift memo.
Comparing 1 high week this year to a random low week last year is one thing. Comparing one week this year to the same week last year is another.
Continuation of a thought.
Settle down, meow.
35000 statement - hyperbolic opinion.
An unrelated thought that shifts the conversation needlessly. Focus!
The 60% statement is accurate only if you look at that specific week.
It is completely bogus if you look at a larger timeframe, which is much more valid when looking at trends.
Is he referring to statistic manipulation? Is he referring to a larger time frame?
Why are you trying to rephrase his comment into something you can swallow?
Did the guy in the video say 60% over a large time frame?
Murders are not up 60%, they were up 60% compared to the same week last year.
He pointed out that as bogus, and he is correct.
SMH! First of all, the 60% is not bogus. You said so yourself. The 60% statement is accurate only if you look at that specific week."
So maybe he was referring to what he read in the paper who said that that week, murders were up 60% from what they were that week a year prior. Not bogus. Not the whole picture, but not bogus.
Had he said that murders were up 60% for the year, he'd be wrong. Thats a bogus number. But he didnt.
A comparison of two weeks a year apart is absolutely bogus when discussing trends in anything.
While technically correct that 8 is 60% greater than 5, that comparison is meaningless.
For example, let's hypothetically say yesterday there was 1 murder.
1 year ago yesterday, there were 4.
It'd be just as bogus to claim murders were down 75%.
The 60% number is meaningless.
Serious adult question here.
If I were to tell you that cancer deaths were up 40%, what timeframe would you be assuming I was talking about?
meaningless: having no meaning or significance. Bogus: not genuine or true; fake.
synonyms: fake, spurious, false, fraudulent, sham, **deceptive**
Emphasis mine on deceptive.
Answer the question
I would argue that a deceptive stat (synonym for bogus) is meaningless.
Enough with the wordplay.
If I were to tell you that cancer deaths were up 40%, what timeframe would you be assuming I was talking about?
An answer would be nice.
Heres a question, why are you arguing his point?
Is it a real conversation? Is it a meaningful exchange of ideas?
The 60% is not bogus. You claimed so yourself. Move on.
Just answer the question.
As far as your cancer deaths, I would need to know the conversation. I would need to know if cancer death rates are EVER broken down on a week to week basis.
I agree with his point that the 60% is bogus (or more accurately, deceptive)
If you were to say cancer deaths are down 40% I would honestly ask 40% compared to when.
Just a random"cancer deaths are down 40%" on its own doesnt say anything. But I wouldnt call it bogus.
Cancer deaths aren't broken down week to week.
But a 40% increase is a pretty big number, would you agree?
People hate cancer just like they hate crime, do they not?
I cant say Im surprised that you agree.
I agree because it's deceptive.
Which it is.
"The 60% statement is accurate only if you look at that specific week." "I agree with his point that the 60% is bogus"
And let me guess. My response as to where he might of gotten it from wasnt reasonable.
I'm glad you'd ask "compared to when". :)
"Bogus statistic" has a slightly different meaning than the standard dictionary definition of bogus, BTW.
Maybe you're not aware that crime stats are often compared on a week to week basis. Kinda like sales stats. I dont think cancer rates are tracked like this. But I could be wrong.
and again. Is there a point here? Are you done arguing another guys statement?
"The 60% statement is accurate only if you look at that specific week."
I can't argue that 8/5 = 1.6
"I agree with his point that the 60% is bogus"
It's still a bogus stat.
Great. Got it. You think it's bogus. Is that a fact or is that an opinion?
Are cancer death rates ever compared on a week to week basis?
Yes, there is a point.
If I wanted to exploit that 40% increase in cancer deaths and use it as a call to action for *something*, am I being deceptive?
Are cancer death rates ever compared on a week to week basis?
"You think it's bogus. Is that a fact or is that an opinion?"
It's a bogus statistic.
bogus =/= bogus statistic
Doesn't matter if they are compared on a week to week basis. You're missing the forest for the trees.
Is such a comparison deceptive?
I guess thats a no?
I dont think its deceptive. I think it doesnt tell the whole story.
which sounds worse? 60% up this week compared to this week last year or 20% up so far this year?
Im more concerned with the 20% YTD than the 60% WTD
They are not compared on a week to week basis.
Why not? It is not a good way to identify trends (for much of anything).
What's the difference between "not telling the whole story" and being deceptive?
"which sounds worse? 60% up this week compared to this week last year or 20% up so far this year?"
That wasn't what was said in the video though. Just homicide are up 60%. no other context.
Clearly, the larger
number registered more with him. (This happens a lot in marketing.)
I agree that the 20% is more concerning. But again, it could still be statistical noise. The mean and variance over the last several years would be more helpful.
They are not. Ok. Good to know. Did you know that crime stats were?
I cant speak for him anymore than you can speak for Josh. I dont know what his intent was. I dont know if he just saw the one article and ran with it. I only said this is where he might of gotten it.
Anyways, that the point with bogus stats.
Big numbers (like 60%) are more memorable and often used to drive some sort of behavior. (buy a product, put more money into cancer research, restart stop-and-frisk, etc.)
I wont pretend to know whats in his head like youre doing with josh. He got a stat he heard on the news that was accurate and went with it.
Your OPINION that its a bogus stat has nothing to do with his factual comment.
They never tell the whole story and when used to promote an agenda - I'd call that deceptive.
"Your OPINION that its a bogus stat has nothing to do with his factual comment."
Perhaps his statement was an opinion as well?
The calculations with bogus stats are factual. 8/5 is and will always be 1.6.
The "bogus" part comes how the # is used. I deal with stats daily and this set off red flags.
The 60% part wasnt
These are tracked by the city. The first column is week to week. Theyve been tracking this for years. Whats the citys agenda? That crime is up?
Again, you are missing the forest from the trees.
"Bogus" =/= "bogus statistic"
8/5 will always be 1.6.
The interpretation as anything meaningful is what makes it a bogus statistic.
A great book on how this is done, BTW.
The city doesnt want crime up. Its bad for business. The citys agenda is to play down crime. For this tracked week, murders are down 50% Why isnt the city screaming this? To promote that agenda.
Maybe it isnt agenda based. Maybe theyve always tracked WTD. (Maybe not always but for a long time)
"They" = bogus stats
The 60% number was factual. On a WTD basis.
18.2% is also factual. on a YTD basis. Neither is bogus.
I'd think that the city's agenda is to track data for police staffing decisions and concentration of scarce resources.
Im happy that joshs statement from yestaerday spurred this opinion you have. I wish you wouldve addressed it yesterday. It wouldve made more sense then,
"For this tracked week, murders are down 50% Why isnt the city screaming this?"
The city didn't scream this last time. It was the NY Post.
A better question would be why they haven't written a similar article with
the opposite message.
Perhaps this is an example of deceptive stats being used to promote an agenda?
Sorry, NY daily news.
But yes, stats can be used for manipulative reasons. Cancer stats being broken down to week to week comparison would be a great example. Since theyre never compared that way.
But crime stats have long been tracked and compared this way.
Whats the agenda?
"I wish you wouldve addressed it yesterday. It wouldve made more sense then,"
i worked 38/48 hours in the last 2 days.
The daily news is selling that crime is up? That would make the Liberals look bad. Why would the Daily News want the liberals to look bad? The side they support?
The Post is a different story
I don't know. Do the NY daily news editors have an agenda?
I believe they do. A liberal agenda.
Who'd they endorse for president in 2012?
(yes, I know they are generally liberal)
My understanding is that they are a bit more on the conservative side on some issues - crime being one of them.
Wrong year, btw. That was 2008.
They endorsed Romney in 2012.
From de Blasio story: "we do so with worrying reservations and strong prescriptions for the candidate. While the appeal of his campaign was strong, de Blasio must act on the tough issues"
Read a bit further down and it discusses that those "worrying reservations and strong prescriptions" have to do with his stance on crime.
thanks for the link!
oh, 2012, http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-the-new-york-daily-news-is-not-a-conservative-paper-%E2%80%93-their-endorsement-of-mitt-romney-is-huge/
Getting back to the paper's agenda with the story.
It may be generally liberal, but side with conservatives on policing related matters. Hence the agenda from the 60% story.
You are falling behind. I already linked to their actual endorsement in 2012...not the mediaite story.
Its a very anti police paper
Reading their reservations and prescription in their endorsement of deBlasio, it didn't seem like it.
Oh. The one endorsement. Lets disregard the rest. It wouldnt help your position. Im sorry.
We are talking about crime.
They mentioned significant concerns about his positions towards crime in his endorsement. (Their #1 concern)
What "rest" am I disregarding?
Was it these?
Editorials from the paper's editorial board are often the best indication of a paper's official stance on an issue.
With crime, they don't appear to be quite as liberal as you want them to be.
All of the articles linked above are from the paper's editorial board.
They don't look like a "very anti police paper"
But I guess I should disregard those.
Sure, they may write articles praising Obama and critical of the GOP ...but on **this specific issue** their editorial board does not appear to be liberal.
Their opinions suggest they disagree with libs here.
Anyways, this has led us off far off topic.
Josh said the 60% stat was bogus.
The stat likely came from the NY daily news story, which seems to have an agenda. The stat and the story are misleading = bogus stat.
I can understand that Josh being right would make you cringe.
It's ok. You'll get over it.
One last thing on NY daily news:
you seem to like to use it as a source on this topic. Before this last discussion today, you linked to it several times to support your points.
Josh isn't often wrong. He usually portrays his opinion as fact and is unwilling to accept differing views. Common in this neighborhood.
But in this instance, he's not.
You've taken it upon yourself to embellish his remark. Taking liberties to add what isn't there. Even so. The 60% is a factual number. Motives aside.
Call me crazy, but that would seem to suggest that it's not quite as liberal on this specific topic as you would like it to be.
60% is factual only in the context of the specific week in question compared to the week 1 year before.
Outside of that context, it is not correct. Homicides are not up 60%.
I think when people hear that homicides are up 60% (with no other context), they don't think that it came from a week to week comparison 1 year apart.
That's where it's misleading. It's overselling the problem.
Give me a few to see what I find.
60% is factual. Period. It's a stat that wasn't somehow contrived to fit an agenda. It's a stat that's normally available in the weekly crime stats released.
WTD stats give a story. Time of year. What's going on. School ending. Similar weather. Holidays. All play a part. They don't tell the overall picture nor are they intended to.
It may be overselling a problem but it's a problem nonetheless.
But I agree. It's a factual stat that's inflammatory.
Better than constantly bringing up last years numbers.
Yes, it is a stat normally available. And I agree that it's helpful in the context of school being out, holidays, weather, etc.
However, it is not intended to show or imply a trend. It's a snapshot.
The NY Daily News reporting on that week's stat (and not reporting on this week's 50% drop) is the agenda promoting part.
We were discussing Josh's comment to the video.
The 60% is factual only in the context of that week.
Saying homicides are up 60% (which is what the video said) is not a factual statement.
Saying homicides were up 60% in that specific week near the end of may is fact
I don't know how often you read the daily news but I read it daily. I don't know how often you read the daily news but I read it daily & I can tell you that A Google search is one thing. The daily reporting is another
The retired officer in the video said that murders were up 60%.
Josh said that was bogus. (Murders are not up 60%, but they were up 60% in one specific week)
You were cringing because he was calling that statement a lie.
And yet murders aren't up 60% (i.e. Josh is right)
So why did you cringe in the first place?
Reporting on stories is one thing, but it is *widely* known that a paper's editorial board is the best place to look to find out a paper's ideological stance on an issue.
The editorial board appears to be pro stop-and-frisk and pro-police in general.
i may be a bleeding heart liberal plc but you aren't a conservative, you aren't a moderate, you aren't even an extremist, you are a sociopath.
on that note, in Charleston, South Carolina hate crimes are up 8,000 percent from last year this week.
I love you too Mr Arroyo. May god bless you and your family. One day, that elusive adult conversation will be possible with you. It's a shame you let hatred rule you. But you're a bleeding heart socialist. Get it right.
don't be silly, god isn't real.
he's quite silly
Adairsville, GA 30103, USA
That we all know. But the questions remains. Is he real?
You of all people should know. You're the one stalking him on Facebook.
Loudon County, TN
upholding your extremely mature posting standards
I still don't know. Do you? And please don't tell me you lecturing ANYONE on maturity. LMAO! You may impress joshie and skal, but that ain't sayin much. Theyre impressed by any far left liberal.
But maybe you're right. Maybe we should just resort to immature tactics. After all, that's all you have to offer. On second thought, no. That destroyed this app. Too many of us (you and I included) caused that.
My hope that we could learn from the past and keep it above level is nothing but a dream. As long as you're here, it'll never happen. Too bad.
Calm down. Try not to get so worked up.
Knoxville, TN, USA
did plc just call racer a far left liberal?
holy #### im not a socialist im chairman mao.
I want cops to obey their oath to defend the Constitution.
Therefore...I'm a far left liberal.
but at what level racer?
would you birch if an officer pulled you over & ticketed you for speeding, 57 in a 55? you are breaking the law.
doing their job would be somewhat subjective, don't you think?
how do you hold an officer liable for a crime, that hasn't occurred yet?
Too many cops in the poor end of town, patrolling, isn't that a form of profiling?
if a cop here stops and questions a person carrying a pistol, is that profiling?
actually h20, plc will tell you speeding is not against the law.
That's funny, right there, I don't care who you are, that's funny shįt.
Speeding is against the law. I've never said it wasn't. But don't let the truth get in the way of your hate.
actually, ####, we had a debate on immigration a while ago where your dumb ass said what was important was they were breaking the law, to which I replied, "everyone breaks the law, have you ever sped"?
your dumb#### self said "speeding isn't against the law." now when you said this it was all ####ing over, I figured you were going to go some dumb#### route like "its a _____, not a law, you cant get arrested for speedin
I was prepared to pull up laws in your state specifically, going deeper and deeper but I realized you were hopeless, you were stuck on stupid and it wasn't going anywhere.
probably one of those ####ing times you think "the conversation got tough, so josh ran." you tried to accuse me of, even though you "run" from every debate on here.
so before you ####ing run your mouth remember the #### you have said in the past, like when you credited bush for withdrawing troops from Iraq in order to take away credit given to Obama.
now your ####ing ass blames Obama for withdrawing the troops from Iraq, all because you have ptsd and cant remember half the #### you say in order to grab a temporary victory.
So much anger. SO MUCH ANGER! GRR. Let it out, let it all out. It'll make you feel so much better. Let....it....ouuuuuuuut!
While you're getting in your much needed venting, I'll reming you that what I actually said was that speeding is not a crime. A crime. It's against the law but it's not a crime.
To preempt your weak response I pre posted NYC law which provides the Vehicle Traffic Law (VTL) and the definition of what a crime is. Shall I copy and paste it for you?
Are you done venting?
I hope you feel all better.
As for your last meaningless ramble, I merely stated facts. Bush arranged for the withdrawal the obama tried to take credit for. And only because obama was incapable of striking a deal to keep the troops there.
Personally, my OPINION is that Bush should never had made that withdrawal arrangement. obama should have negotiated a deal that would have kept our troops there. For as long as we needed.
That, is my personal opinion.
The Bush withdrawal agreement is a fact.
obamas inability to strike a deal, a fact.
I'm sorry that my ability to understand these issues a little more than you upsets you. I wish it wouldnt. Maybe if it didnt, we would be able to have better conversations.
Too bad your anger issues get the best of you.
BTW, Hows Drayvon?
And if you didnt notice, I'm right here. I don't run from debate. I decide not to partake in the insult contests that ruined this place. Clean honest mature debate Im all in for. Name calling, not so much. Not any more.
Have a good night. I'll read your angry response in the morning. Or whenever you decide to post it.
For those who don't know. Here's the definition according to the Urban Dictionary.
tl;dr. - Tool long, didn't read
1. The inability to accept, understand or pay attention to information when not separated by a header.
2. The ability to arbitrarily read 400 small posts but not a long one
3. A sign of ADD or lack of reading capability
4. A very cheap response and an indication of lack of wit.
5. 98% of the time: a lie.
6. A dewparqte attempt at a comeback used by people who just can't think of one.
Let me retype that last one. For clarity
6. A desperate attempt at a comeback used by people who just can't think of one.
7. Usually used by people who've been torn apart verbally but want one last attempt at looking witty.
Let me retype that last one. For clarity
7. Usually used by people who've been torn apart verbally but want one last attempt at looking witty.
8. Total failure at #7.
7. A sign that, not only is someone too lazy and stupid to read but, clearly, too lazy and stupid to even type out four words indicating such.
9. Collect every "tl,dr" post online, and you'll have a good estimate of the number of lazy idiots on Earth, who currently have Internet access.
10. Should really be:
"Too Lazy, Don't Read."
".....I got nut'n!"
I think # 7 applies here.
I said my piece, it doesn't really matter how you try to backtrack. you play this "oh u mad" badly, there is no debate about what you said then vs now.
Martinsburg, WV 25401, USA
you post 20 1 sentence posts because you're shook and can't focus. you are in desperation territory and I won. tl;dr is a home because I said more than you did in one post.
Martinsburg, WV, USA
may your fake god bless your broken family.
The bad part is your piece is a lie. Go back and look. I know what I said. What I just proved you wrong about. Again. And the rest of your post refer back to #7. Have a great day. Tell Drayvon I said hi. God Bless!
Do we have any update on the crime rate in NYC?
Perimeter Center, Sandy Springs, GA
Calhoun, GA, USA
What about an update on the NYPD quota system?
Calhoun, GA 30701, USA
I'm pretty sure murder is still up.
I don't know if anyone can say the administration has the situation under control yet.
No it isn't.
According to the most recent available crime statistics, murder is down by 25%, when compared to the same time frame in 2014.
Maybe you're not aware that crime stats are often compared on a week to week basis.
Oh yeah, how about unemployment stats how do they get those?
first you eliminate 1/3 of the workforce
then everyone who gets ANY type of payment for labor is counted (pt, ft, sal, tip, etc)
declare all people under 24 as students
add in foreign workers
They havent been able to control it yet.
How's it trending?
In NYC violent crime is trending up. Unfortunately.
more of that week to date ####.
is the Murder rate up or down in our larger cities?
Nobody here is talking about week to date. Year to date is a fair comparison. YTD murder is up and violent crime is trending up.
One data point doesn't make a trend
i see more than one point. Maybe we see things differently. So I ask you. How is it trending?
i knew you were stupid, i had no idea you didn't know what a trend was when citing it.
U mad bro?
Josh , either say something of substance or shut the #### up. ####ing troll.
Anyone who doesn't see violent crime trending up in NYC is only fooling themselves.
"In NYC violent crime is trending up. Unfortunately."
What was that determination based upon?
A poor understanding of what trend means?
Try, for once, to put the cheap shots aside. If you can. How do you think it's trending?
nope, not trending
just fųcking way ahead of last year's body count, for the same time period.
And nearly everything is down from 2 years ago.
One data point doesn't make a trend.
@plc - it's not a cheap shot when you clearly don't understand how trends work
So how do trends work? From what I see crime trended down for years showing decreases just about every month. Until this year when those decreases started going away and we started seeing increases.
I'll ask you for a third time. How do you think violent crime in NYC is trending currently?
Racer, my determination was made based on observing the violent crime statistics every month this year and comparing it to last year. Currently most categories are up.
Murder has been up for months. So has rape. Robbery is now up. How is that one point?
Maybe this will help you out:
"Criminologists warn against short-term comparisons like these, because crime data are volatile and prone to fluctuations. The crime trend over decades — over five years, at minimum — is what matters, they say."
“Basically, you can look at a blip and say that crime is increasing. But if you take a step back, you’ll see that crime is decreasing,” said Inimai Chettiar, director of the justice program at New York
University’s Brennan Center for Justice. (See this graphic below by Matt Friedman, the Brennan Center’s economist.)
Look at the graphic. that's what a trendline looks like.
You'll see some dots above the line.
2014 was a bit below the line.
This year's numbers fit back with the trendline.
I can't teach you epidemiology, but that's how trends work.
NYCLU Report and statistics on Stop- And- Frisk:
"When stops plummeted in 2012 and 2013, shootings and murders declined substantially, with murders falling in 2013 to the lowest level ever recorded."
The facts contradict your position.
The facts? Is murder up? Yes. Is that a fact? Yes. Is rape up? Yes. Is that a fact? Yes. You asked me how I made my determination. I responded. Month after month say murder is up. Violent crime is trending up.
If I was talking about 2013 you'd have a point. If I was talking about yearly trends skal would have a point. But that's not what I said.
And anyone using anything from the aclu should be smacked across the mouth. Just sayin.
skal, can also trend line plausibly be days?, weeks?, months? vs. years or decades.
who determines the x axis ?
Obviously skal does. Adjusted as necessary to fit his narrative.
The quote was credited to Inimai Chettiar, director of the justice program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.
Clearly, when studying statistics, the broader the timeframe...the more reliable the trending pattern.
Far more so than a snapshot of week vs previous year.
clearly in statistics the more data points AND length give a truer trend..
So if we want a more reliable picture let's compare the past 100 years? Would that give us a more accurate picture?
So you're going to discuss crime trends over the past 100 years and ignore today? Go for it. I'm busy looking at the here and now and the violence that's occurring now. The lives lost now.
The here and now is that crime is trending up over the last couple of months. The facts support that.
clearest would be 5 yrs with daily records. very bulky & unwieldy. .
might try and annual with daily, 3 yrs with weekly, 10 yrs with monthly
Who said ignore today?
That's another Strawman argument.
What I'm saying is put the statistics in context.
Here you go:
15 years of murder rate for NYC.
How's that trend look?
What affect did the end of stop and frisk have on murder rate?
"Obviously skal does. Adjusted as necessary to fit his narrative."
"If I was talking about 2013 you'd have a point. If I was talking about yearly trends skal would have a point."
Sounds like YOU are the one trying to use a shorter frame to fit your narrative.
The people who study these types of things warn against doing exactly what you are doing.
I'm not talking about 15 years. I know all too well that crime has gone down. All I'm saying is that this year. Over the past few months. Violent crime has been trending up.
They give a reason why.
The graphics that racer linked from the article show why.
“Basically, you can look at a blip and say that crime is increasing. But if you take a step back, you’ll see that crime is decreasing,”
I guess that doesn't fit your narrative.
Please explain how a criminologist's recommended time frame of at least 5 years to determine a trend in violent crime is inferior to your own?
the effect on murder by SQF has yet to be seen. Let's talk about it in 10 years. If SQF is still in the state it is today we will have to see if the murder rate has continued to drop as it has over the past 20 years.
Did I say 15 years? Is that your strawman argument?
Ctrl+F 15 years on this thread.
Outside of this post, I haven't mentioned it once.
Racer asked a question. "How is it trending" I gave my answer. He then asked how I came to that determination. I gave my answer.
a simple question. Over the past few months, how is violent crime trending in NYC?
I am looking at the monthly reports. Those indicate a steady increase over last year.
2014 was near historic low for violent crime in NYC, correct?
You do realize that using the previous year's near record low as a comparison to establish a trend is erroneous, right?
If you would,like to reframe the conversation to cover the past 5 years, then yes, crime is down.
But understand that that's a different conversation than the one I was having regarding crime trending up over the past few months.
"Criminologists warn against short-term comparisons like these, because crime data are volatile and prone to fluctuations."
Trending up. Violent crime is still down as compared to last year. But from the way things are going I would guess we'll end up with worse numbers than we did last year.
You are claiming a trend by comparing against a historically low crime year.
That's erroneous on so many levels.
Either you really have ZERO understanding of trends or you are cherry picking data.
(it's the latter)
This is funny. You're unnecessarily making this more convoluted than it needs to be. Murder is up. More people have died this year than last year. Same for rape and same for robberies. Period.
If you choose to disregard that FACT, that's up to you. Feel free to go back to a time where the numbers favor your narrative. I'll stick with present day facts.
More people are dead. Will it stay that way? I don't know. Neither do you. Is deblasio to blame? I don't know and neither do you. What we do know is that more people are dead this year so far than last year at this point
If you want to quote criminologists opinion and discuss epidemiology until your nose bleeds, knock yourself out. The fact remains. More people have been murdered this year than last. Up to this date. Fact.
More shooting victims
More sex crime victims
But less SQF
You're trying to establish a trend that isn't there by using a historically low violent crime year are your baseline.
And you are doing this despite: "Criminologists warn against short-term comparisons like these, because crime data are volatile and prone to fluctuations."
"Is deblasio to blame? I don't know and neither do you."
And your not so thinly veiled agenda comes out.
I'm not trying to establish ####. I'm saying that more people are dead this year at this point than last year at this point. Very simple.
I'm not cherry picking some random year. I'm comparing THIS year to LAST year.
What this means for the future numbers is unknown. What IS known is that we have more murder victims and more sex crime victims now than last year.
Do the criminologists say that there are less murder victims this year than last year?
No, but they do warn against short term comparisons like you have been repeatedly doing.
And I'm sure you aren't trying to establish anything.
Want to buy that bridge in Brooklyn from me?
How about this. #### what criminologists say. What do YOU say? Is murder up this year so far over last year? How is violent crime trending over the past 9 months?
so criminologists tell me I can't see that murder is up this year from last? Wow!
The timeframe is cherrypicked. Not the year comparison year.
The year to year fluctuations have lead criminologists to not consider that as a reliable measure of a trend in crime rates.
Yet somehow, you do.
LOL. You're such a bitch. I'm not trying to establish anything. I'm looking at the stats provided by the City of NY. They compare this year to last. I wonder why they don't employ criminologists.
You mad, bro?
More people are dead. But don't worry. I won't blame it on deblasio yet. You liberals crack me up.
Mad? Me? Not at all. I never know why you ask that.
The fact that you consider a one year comparison valid says either:
1) you have no understanding of trends
2) you have an agenda
I suppose it's not an either/or. Probably both.
Maybe the NYC should hire you. They consider one year comparisons valid. But I'm sure you're smarter than the entire NYC government. The criminologists said so.
The fact that you consider any fact that goes against your narrative not valid says either 1) you're a liberal or 2) you're an idiot. (Both being the same)
And again, you're incapable of answering questions. The answers must bother you.
I never said the data (facts) weren't valid.
I said your interpretation of those data (facts) was invalid.
My conclusion is supported by people who spend their lives studying that data.
So are they valid or are they not?
What my interpretation?
That over the past few months theyre trending up? Are they not?
You're retired. Maybe you can lend your new-found expertise to the criminologists down at the Brennan Center.
That'd be a fun interview, to say the least.
Is it written in stone that a trend be minimum 5 years? Is that the only option. A few months are not allowed to be called a trend? Albeit less reliable but a trend nonetheless?
I didn't know you were the rule maker. My bad.
I'm not looking for a job. I didn't know I needed to be a certified professional,to answer a question about how I feel about a subject.
Your interpretation that the data from the last few months signifies a trend vs. regression back to the established trendline.
A fun interview? LMAO! I love your arrogance. you must be the life of the party.
"A few months are not allowed to be called a trend?"
Why? Data volatility
Let me ask you again. How has violent crime been trending over the past 9 months?
So a few months are not allowed to be called a trend? Please show me where that rule is written?
The numbers are up from a historically low baseline.
"Please show me where that rule is written?"
People who analyze the data have created that rule.
Ask them on your interview.
Please call deblasio & Bratton and tell them to stop using one year comparisons. Tell them you're really book smart and you read a washington post piece. I'm sure they're waiting to hear from you.
Some people who analyze that data made a recommendation. Is that considered a rule? Must be easy to reclassify anything to fit your narrative.
"The numbers are up". Thank you. That's all I've said. Have a good night.
No need. They release much more granular data already. People have already done some fascinating analyses. You should check it out.
"Some people who analyze that data made a recommendation."
They, unlike you, seem to have an understanding of data analysis.
But I'm sure your analysis is just as valid.
"That's all I've said."
No insinuation. No agenda. Nothing more than that.
skal, you may be an expert in medical field, but you are barely an expert in mathematics or statistical computation.
data can be gathered and analyzed over short periods of time to provide snapshot views.
historical low or high years have no meaning in long term if data remains approximately the same.
the question is very basic is crime up, down, same as last year. it is still trending in a direction, even if you look at 5 - 10 years.
if you wish to comparative analysis over 10, 20... years, it may very well be trending differently.
but to state that you cannot do an annual comparison with data and reach a conclusion is incorrect and absurd.
to make long term conclusion and changes using short term data is equally incorrect and absurd.
to insinuate crime is lower, using data not completely current, is just plain wrong.
as a researcher formally trained in math and stats, you're incorrect on that point H2O.
Burnsville, MN, USA
I agree shorter timeframes can be useful - depends on the data set.
experts in this particular field think the dataset is too volatile to be useful with smaller time windows. this is pretty normal with data that occurs at relatively low frequency.
if you are doing a short term comparison year by year, the fact that last year was historically low absolutely affects any comparison with this year's data.
that's obvious from a statistical standpoint
" but to state that you cannot do an annual comparison with data and reach a conclusion is incorrect and absurd"
A comparison can be done, but the fluctuation makes it less than meaningful.
"to make long term conclusion and changes using short term data"
That's what PLC is trying to do. Make a long term conclusion using short term data.
Conclusion: Crime is trending up
Short term data: Relative comparison to a year with historically low numbers.
"to insinuate crime is lower, using data not completely current, is just plain wrong"
You should look at the scatterplot and trendlines again. extrapolating current data, 2015 would be about right on the trendline.
But I didnt make any long term conclusions Mr Strawman. I merely said that over the past few months violent crime has been trending up.
I clearly said I dont know what this means for future crime stats and I clearly said that over the last 5 years crime is down. You're trying to make up ####. That seems to be your MO. Looking for that moment.
insinuations are your MO
you can always walk it back and claim you never said something you were clearly implying.
again skal, you are using long term data/conclusion and applying it to a short term data set. WRONG
simply answer the questions using the data set provided.
Is murder annually up from same period a year ago?
has murder increased on a steady line over the same period a year ago?
use day to day data, from Jan 1, to current date each year.
do not compare annual rate to 5 year rate.
You may have missed it, but I already gave that answer up above.
Followed by repeated explanations of why comparisons against a historically low year (statistical outlier) is faulty.
H2O - how often in statistics is the outlier used as the baseline for comparison?
Is that a valid comparison?
Never and No
The debate here has never been the facts.
The numbers are higher. That's a fact.
The debate has been about interpretation and whether it represents a trend
My position has been that a year by year comparison isn't useful for establishing a trend with this type of data.
Because of the volatility and low frequency, you'll end up comparing against outliers
Comparing against outliers is just bad stats.
But I guess I'm barely an expert in statistical computation, fwiw.
and I would agree, but if I applied the same criteria to a medical procedure you'd argue that too.
a trend graph is defined by the originator, it's his data set, no matter how narrow. you can argue the conclusion all you want.
if I apply 2013 vs 2014, you say crime is decreasing and also be correct.
historic low has absolutely nothing to do with the results.
2013 was historically low compared to 2010,
see climate change, global warming, global cooling. ....
how's that data set look for the past 100 yrs, 500 yrs.
it might even depend on whose data you use.
the point is crime is going up, is it long or short term trend or an abdominally?
the point is ONE institution is not an absolute authority either.
if that the case, mayo. would be forced to Obey John Hopkins. .
"if I applied the same criteria to a medical procedure you'd argue that too"
No, I wouldn't.
"historic low has absolutely nothing to do with the results."
That's where you are wrong. It has everything to do with the results.
Comparing a low outlier with another higher value that follows the same trend
will always give you a apparent "blip" upwards
"the point is ONE institution is not an absolute authority"
Not sure what your point is here.
What exactly am I insinuating?
2014 wasn't much lower than 2013 in murders.
I have no idea what you could be insinuating.
couldn't possibly be related to your OP
What exactly am I insinuating?
I gave you the answer already.
You weren't trying to establish anything, but included this above.
"But less SQF"
There's your insinuation.
So you're saying that my insinuation is that crime is up because SQF #s are down?
Like the State Senator said in the OP.
Like many in NYC are saying.
But you and your liberal clown posse will say it has nothing to do with it. Ill say it could. Time will tell.
which comes full circle to the question: is crime really up?
only if you compare to a historically low year. (statistical outlier)
in other words, statistical shenanigans to fit an agenda
doom and gloom sells
the "crime is up!" mantra is a good way to try to bring back the beloved SQF
even if it's a deceptive interpretation of the data.
crime is up from last year. thats how comparisons are always made here. For years it was "crime is down from last year" nothing has changed. except for the liberal whining.
is it deceptive? do you have enough data to make that assertion? you dont have your required 5 years of data to know. But now, short term data seems to be quite enough. hypocrite much?
If that "historically low year was at some random time in the past, you would be correct. But it isnt. Its the time frame these comparisons are always made. The dept is always fighting against last years #s.
All of a sudden, this long used practice does help your narrative so its an issue. Laughable at best.
The statistical shenanigans come in when you shift the comparison frame to a period that benefits you.
"do you have enough data to make that assertion? you dont have your required 5 years of data to know."
Like I said earlier, the raw data is out there and people have done fascinating things with it.
And then there's these types of statistical shenanigans that questions the data integrity in general.
Don't like the new SQF policy?
All of a sudden there is incentive to no longer downgrade an offense.
I think that's called "libstigginit"
Don't strain yourself while you're reaching. Desperation is a horrible thing.
The raw data indicates crime is up this year. Using the same comparison standard they've used for years.
you argue over how the data is analyzed & compared, all the fųcking time ignoring the problem.
The fųcking major crime rate is up from last year, in almost every major U.S. city. Not a flying fųcking appears to give a shít.
just blame the other side, cops suck and are brutal, no political cover, citizens hate us.
it's only up against a historical low, never mind it's on a 10-15 yrs high parh.
solve or discuss the problem, no, I'd rather fųcking nit-pick your grammar.
@PLC - It's more likely than you think.
WTF does fudging the numbers have to do with the increase in crime? Where they hiding the bodies?
Baltimore, DC, Chicago, Detroit. ....
"WTF does fudging the numbers have to do with the increase in crime?"
lots. fewer downgraded violent crimes increases the number of violent crimes counted.
that should be obvious, even for you
@H2O re other cities: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32995911
Actually for PLC, too. Particularly the last two sections.
Damn criminologists and statisticians.
I bet racer has some favorite lines from that piece.
duh, it's exactly what I stated above.
quit trying to look like some sort of holier than thou super genius, your a fųcking mortal, no better than anyone else.
Your apparent attempt at "better than" is lacking .
now doc, is crime UP from last year?
is it an abdominally?
is it a upward movement?
is it the new norm?
come on, you're all knowing
being a doctor by no means makes you a genius or superior individual.
doesn't even indicate if you're a good doctor.
How does one downgrade a murder?
This part? "violent crime being up in NYC is related to the decrease in "stop and frisk", said Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."
H2O, that's the problem with skal. Book smart and life stupid. Very common with his type (see dr evil).
This part? "Violent crime rates are often in response to major changes in policing".
"Shootings in New York City have been rising for two straight years, the first time that has happened since the end of the 1990s"
"Homicides by gunfire, seen as a key measure of preventable violence, are up steeply this year."
"“We do not take this lightly,” said Chief O’Neill, ............... “This is our focus.”"
are you sure you arent inexorable?
Why are they taking this so seriously? Doesn't the NYPD employ criminologists? Don't they know that these short term spikes are statistically unreliable? Why are they losing sleep over this?
Maybe you should reach out to them skal. As the smartest guy in MN you have a responsibility. Maybe you should teach them epidemiology. I'll bet they're interested in your book smarts.
Too bad real life skills can't be learnt from a book.
@PLC - I hope you didn't stop reading there. You missed:
"Short-term spikes are statistically unreliable, especially if they come after a long-term decline, and could just be a blip, said Dr James Alan Fox,
a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.
"It's a ridiculous silly game of focusing too much on too little, trying to ascribe it to something like the impact of [events in] Ferguson," said Mr Fox.
"None of these statistics are reliable."
A wider window of statistics would be much more reliable than a handful of figures representing January to May of this year, he said.
I didn't. But it looks like you skipped over some parts. Which opinion is valid? Only the ones that you agree with? Some crimonogosts say one thing while others the complete opposite. Damn opinions! WTF
"It is usually a mistake to declare a trend based on a few months of figures for a handful of cities. It is also difficult to blame this selection of figures on a nationwide problem with US policing, or anything else
for the matter."
--Anthony Reuben, head of statistics, BBC News
"How does one downgrade a murder?"
You don't, but you downgrade other types of violent crime.
"Which opinion is valid? Only the ones that you agree with?"
"None of these statistics are reliable."
Since these stats aren't reliable, I'd disagree with the one that draws it's conclusion from these stats.
In other words, the conclusion that violent crime is up is drawn from an unreliable statistic.
It only makes sense to reject that one.
Can you imagine? Different criminologists have different opinions. How could that be? You make it sound like an exact science. They can differ in opinion but you and I can't? Your ego won't allow it.
Believe it or not, there is a science behind statistical analysis.
Apparently some of these criminologists aren't aware of your exact science. Please teach them.
Of course they can differ in opinion, but that doesn't mean those opinions are equal.
Blumstein drew his opinion from an unreliable statistic.
Rueben and Fox from understanding statistical variation.
The volatility of stats must make your exact science tough. You're a ####ing genius. How will crime be next year in NYC?
Volatility DOES make it tough.
And that's exactly why Blumstein's conclusion is premature.
LMAO! Whodathunkit! You only think the opinions that fit your narrative are valid. All criminologists are equal but only as long as their opinions match mine. Pathetic is an understatement for you.
BTW, I never said it was an exact science. Those were your words.
The variation ("blips") is what makes it the opposite.
That's also why you NEVER jump to conclusions based on one data point (as you are)
How can you have a serious conversation when your ego keeps getting in your way? Liberalism is truly a mental disorder. I'm done here. I'll leave you to your ignorance. As I watch violent crime climb.
"You only think the opinions that fit your narrative are valid."
No, premature conclusions that don't yet match the data are invalid.
A blip is not a trend.
Repeat after me:
A blip is not a trend
A blip is not a trend
A blip is not a trend
Blumstein may be correct. Absolutely. But it's a bit premature based on one point.
Blumsteins (the criminologist) opinion that it's related to SQF is premature but your (the alleged Dr from MN) opinion that it isn't, isn't premature. Got it. You're not ignorant (sarcasm).
"You only think the opinions that fit your narrative are valid."
The thing is, we all came to the same conclusion for the exact same fundamentally sound reason (based in stats).
"it's related to SQF is premature but your (the alleged Dr from MN) opinion that it isn't, isn't premature. "
A blip is not a trend, so attributing a reason for what could be statistical noise IS premature.
"I'm sure the relevant police departments are looking at these figures very carefully, but we will need considerably more data over a longer period to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions."
(That would suggest that if you are trying to draw meaningful conclusions now, they may be premature)
But what does the head of stats at the BBC know.
Monroe County, TN
Imagine that. A liberal posting an opinion piece in support of a liberal. How odd.
Doesn't change the fact that violent crime is up this year. at least as compared to last year. The same comparison standard that's been used for years. Everyone was ok with it. Until it makes a liberal look bad.
"A liberal posting an opinion piece in support of a liberal."
Attack the person instead of the merits of the argument.
If only there were a name for doing that...
you mean this week? from last year? a comparison that has never been standard or accepted from any thinking person until you needed it to support your unsupportable opinion?
aren't all pieces of journalism opinion? what makes it less so the facts cited, more facts less opinion, but the opinion is always the basis, its the drive to write the story.
you cite your opinion as your defense, you liken it to your favorite color. you step over mountains of statistics to find non standard single stats and call it a trend because you don't even know what the word means.
the basis of this whole thread is you using the opinion of a state senator!
All that jazz dont change the facts here maam.
More murders. More sex crimes. More robberies. Less SQF. All facts. What does it mean? Who knows! I know I don't. But time will tell. In the meantime. The numbers are up. Unfortunately.
What's hilarious...and also a fact...
...is that the article in the OP was written in July 2014...lambasting the increase in crime.
...the year ended with the lowest murder rate on record.
Knoxville, TN 37934, USA
That's a fact, Jack.
How do you justify that, PLC?
"n a letter posted on his website, Diaz says criminals are running rampant because Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton got rid of stop-and-frisk."
Knox County, TN
if the end of stop and frisk was causing crime to increase...
...how the fück do you rationalize that 2014 was an historic low for crime in NYC?
are you saying there were less gun crimes when they stopped frisking people to see if they had guns? that there were less drug crimes when they stopped frisking people for drugs?
let's see, who commits the crimes? African American males. so when the cops stopped frisking african-american males... they stopped being angry so... they committed less crimes!
they left their guns at home they left their drugs at home and instead handed in job applications thus the decrease in unemployment oh my god!!
SoOoo what else can we do to get the exact opposite reaction we expect? we can lower the price of fuel so we drive less? I'm confused maybe you're not talking about gun and drug crimes? because if I'm sure the cops aren't going to frisk me I'm
I'm carrying a god damn Desert Eagle! Hey wait a minute maybe the crime decreased because everybody was carrying fricking guns! you don't see gun stores getting robbed too often doughnut shops either
SO THAT'S HOW THE FÛCK WE'RE going to rationalize why 2014 was an historic low for crime in NYC!!
either that or the criminals werent angry no more so they stopped committing crimes. They didn't need drugs anymore either
Oh, The ignorance!
He began this thread in 2014 with a doom and gloom article about how the end of stop and frisk was leading to a crime wave.
I pointed out that statistics showed how ineffective that unconstitutional practice was at deterring crime.
The crime wave expected due to the end of stop and frisk never panned out...
...2014 ended with the lowest murder rate ever recorded for NYC.
So, PLC Tactical silently abandoned this thread with no acknowledgement that both he and the OP article couldn't have possibly been more wrong.
since we like to point out facts with absolutely zero insinuation
historically low violent crime rates occurred the first full year post-SQF
can't argue with facts, right PLC?
He was gone a full 9 months front this thread...only to when he felt the wind had shifted favorably in his favor.
He found an article suggesting crime was on the uptick in April of 2015.
Unfortunately, he posted the article a bit prematurely, without properly prodding its contents in their entirety.
The article actually detailed how overall crime rates were down.
Realizing he'd spoken too soon...he latched the one crime that was in his favor.
There had been an increase in murder.
Unfortunately (for PLC)...as the year is playing out...that number is shrinking.
At last count, the difference between 2014's all time low and the current year...there's only been 9 more murders.
PLC has ignorantly hitched his wagon to this stat.
It's going to be hilarious to see how quickly he re-abandons this thread when the numbers don't go his way!
My way would be down. I hope all the numbers go down. But im not making any predictions like you are.
(You mean 17 more murders. Not 9. You're welcome.)
This entire thread was based off of a prediction.
Dock Junction, GA, USA
...one that didn't come true, and you've refused to address.
How do you rationalize the article from the OP with reality?
2014 was the lowest murder rate on record...after the end of stop and frisk.
Those are facts.
Never attempt to correct me.
It just makes you look stupid.
You're still using August 30th figures.
My number is from yesterday.
"simple facts, as of midnight last night, 9 is the difference in murders between last year and this year."
-NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio (September 9, 2015)
Your figures are diminishing rapidly.
(I meant 9 murders. you're welcome)
I'll stick with the official numbers until they change. 17.
Stick with whatever floats your boat.
Just know you're wrong.
Brunswick, GA, USA
About 2014's historic low for murder...how do you attempt to justify that with your opinion that ending stop and frisk was causing crime to increase?
LOL! Am I? Is murder up? Rape? I'll answer that for you since you don't do uncomfortable questions. Yes they are.
This is awesome!
I thought you liked facts?
Brunswick, GA 31523, USA
from 2010 to 2011 -21, from 2011 to 2012 -96, from 2012 to 2013 -84, from 2013 to 2014 -2, from 2014 to 2015 +17 (so far).
I love facts.
So do I.
When did the massive reduction in stop and frisk incidences begin?
Jekyll Island, GA 31527, USA
How did the reduction of stop and frisk incidences correlate with crime data?
When did the courts decision regarding SQF take effect? late 2013 early 2014.
I love facts, too.
The courts decision on SQF hasnt yet been fully realized. Nor should we expect them to have an overnight effect. But we can see by the numbers so far where they may be going.
Facts are fücking awesome!
Facts are ####ing awesome. Murders-UP, Rapes-UP, Robbery-UP, Misd sex crimes-UP! I LOVE LOVE LOVE facts!
When did the incidences of stop and frisk peak?
They've been declining dramatically since then...with no effect on crime.
You love yesterdays facts. I love todays facts. Theres the difference. Step out of the time machine Hobbes.
Your position is easily proven to be incorrect...thanks to facts.
My position is that murder is up now. How is that easily proven to be incorrect?
Alright...just got off the phone with the NYPD.
They apologized for the delay in posting the updated City Wide Crime Statistics, and promised to put them online overnight.
I'll take a look at them in the morning.
The court ruling didnt come until 2013.
In the meantime, I just pulled in to the beach resort.
I've got some ####tails and people that need my immediate attention.
in the morning you're going to see that murder is up. So are most violent crime categories. But you wont admit it. Cause you hate me smacking you around. You cant admit that you're clueless. So sad.
yeah so don't get so ####y you ####sucker
the NYC murder rate is down by nearly 70% from last year!
you know racer, Jekyll island was the place that captains of finance gathered in secret to draft the federal reserve act enacted in 1913. they say it used to be a private billionaires club.
@ over 2 years ago
Bella Vista, CA 96008, USA
it still is
Had dinner with some clients at the Grand Dining Room at the Jekyll Club Resort last night. All plantation style building and decor.
Only problem with this place is the bars shut down at 10:00 PM. You gotta buy your own booze, and take the party to the beach after that.
Think I'm gonna do a beach bonfire tonight.
crazy. maybe you can find out if/how/when the federal reserve act was renewed. it was supposed to be a 100 year contract. but I can't find anything on its renewal. perhaps it was a burried clause in tpa or ndaa?
Bella Vista, CA, USA
Just watched Zeitgeist a couple off weeks ago.
Pretty interesting stuff. North only the federal reserve...but all the world banking shït
yeah I watched that a few years ago. I think there's like 3 of them now.
never mind http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/is-the-federal-reserve-act-going-to-expire.htm
Blake video is just another isolated incident.
he shouldn't have been resisting
In Baltimore that officer would be facing attempted murder charges.
and in plcs world if he killed blake you better hope the officer didnt sprain a wrist or the body would be charged with assaulting an officer.
oh and i like how you shut the #### up on your bull#### stats thing real ####ing fast.
the officer who threw blake to the ground is also being sued for excessive force from a man who says he punched him in the face 3 times during a traffic stop, the officer countersued him for "biting his hand"
with the kind of injury that one would get by punching someone in the face 3 times.... the officer has 4 excessive force complaints in 4 years that are not anything to shrug off as normal.
the man should be fired and charged with assault.
plc just hopes blake didnt hurt him when he was going down.
something drastic needs to happen to change police behavior in this country.
fire them all and start over,
disarm all cops
(no guns, no clubs)
give them a mandatory 40 hrs conflict resolution class
legalize all drugs & alcohol
or...and hear me out on this...have an open an honest dialogue regarding police misconduct
Offer better police training regarding police dispute resolution, and use of force.
identify and deal with incidences of misconduct
you can't have that discussion if your stance is that the majority of police departments are corrupt.
as are most hospitals, the military, etc.. there are many professions that have cliques, bands, etc. are they all corrupt, also?
if the majority are corrupt, the only solution becomes fire them, have trials (of some sort), imprison those convicted and start over.
that's the only solution?
Why not implement the changes I've detailed repeatedly through this thread?
good start to creating police accountability would be:
° Body cameras worn by all cops (video to be direct upload to a central server. The original may be duplicated, but not edited)
° GPS in every patrol car (Lots of employers do it)
° Release the stats detailing how many citizens are killed by members of law enforcement.
What good reason would exist for this information being withheld?
Better training for police (stop the shoot first mentality)
Demilitarization of the force. Only SWAT needs the big stuff.
Stop teaching police trainees to reach for their guns first. More time spent teaching de-escalation tactics.
Appoint a truly independent 3rd party review board to investigate police misconduct and abuse of authority.
No more policing yourself.
Terminate the commanders who are found to be reprimanding whistleblowers.
Encourage good cops to come forward and report abuse of authority.
Simply firing an entire department doesn't address the root cause of the problem.
Liberty County, GA
but you're leaving corrupt cops in place
again several "majority" of departments are corrupt
many of your proposals work for new cops, that aren't corrupt
what about adding the officer is presumed guilty over the citizen in all cases.
immediately placed on unpaid leave once an accusation has Ben made.
of you want an actual conversation, try not using hyperbole
if it was an actual discussion vs your "it's my way or the highway", "majority of cops are corrupt" (can say the same of especially doctors and military),
I even agree with majority of racer ideas
but alas, you'll nitpick the grammar
Courtland, VA, USA
which of my police reform proposals do you disagree with and why?
Monticello, GA 31064, USA
"majority of cops are corrupt"
What exactly is "better police trading"? Better how? What exactly would be different? Do you know what's taught now? If you do, how do you know? If you don't, what makes you think it's bad? The media? ACLU?
better police training
Social Circle, GA 30025, USA
Less militarized training, more psychology and conflict resolution training.
Which of my police reform proposals do you disagree with and why?
stats, on citizens killed by cops
you have no qualifier as to why deadly forced used.. just a cop kills a citizen. cops guilty
haven't heard a cry about the cop killing a citizen @ dc union station.
guy had a knife, cops gunned him down.
wasn't threatening the cop. cop used excessive force (more force than citizen had)
how do you, racer, allow for deadly force to be used? (if at all)
who's on your "independent/3rd party" review board? what are their qualifications, if any?
How do you ensure that they're not corrupted?
Release the figures and data on citizens killed by cops. Allow the facts to speak for themselves.
Enough with the ridiculous Strawmen.
YOU said "cop kills citizen. Cop guilty."
I said release the data.
What justification is there to conceal it?
What's there to hide?
How can you have accountability without transparency?
How do I justify use of force by the police?
By an evaluation of the facts of an incidence in which force is used.
almost your complete rhetoric lately has cops guilty without all the facts, majority of cops are corrrupt.
yes, the strawman / hyperbole works when applied to the majority of conversations here.
You don't want justice, you want police neutered.
you know you're not concerned with the facts just how many those fųcking cops have murdered.
1. My "rhetoric" is a factual position of why police reform is needed. I've backed and supported my position with detailed examples of specific cases of incidences lack of police accountability.
2. This isn't the police accountability thread. This is the stop and frisk thread. I have no idea why this tangent it's being created here and now.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the most recent NYC crime data that was released?
You know, the report that confirms that the sky isn't actually falling.
The one that shows that despite the end of stop and frisk...crime is still at an all time low in NY.
It only confirms that murder is up. Rape is up. Robbery is up. Sex crimes are up. Nobody said the sky is falling. Nobody said overall crime is up. Stop the strawman arguments yourself. Maybe you'll learn something.
Murder is up?
So we're no longer using the week vs 1 year ago week stat that you wanted to use when it worked in your favor?
So...it's valid when it says murder is up by 60%...but invalid when the exact same figure says murder is down by 68%?
"If you're happy with a reactive police force please come to NYC. Just be ready to see crime go through the roof."
- PLC (quote from this thread...last year when you still thought the stats were in your favor)
You said that.
You said crime was going to through the roof.
The year ended with the lowest crime rates on record.
History has proven your opinion to be factually incorrect.
Your position is wrong.
Ive never used that week vs week standard. That would be another strawman argument.
Crime trends dont shift overnight. It takes time. I never said crime would go through the roof in 2014, 2015 or any year. I merely said that a reactive police force will result is crime going through the roof.
Once again, you decide, on your own, to prescribe a time period. Amazingly you choose a time frame that you think benefits your narrow ignorant views. Again.
If the liberal policies that you support are implemented, I predict a rise in crime in the future. Could be 2 years. 5 years. 10 years. 20 years.
It's ignorant to think that these policies will have an immediate recognizable blatant impact.
Murder is up. There are 10 (not 9) more murders at this point this year than last.
so, you're attempting to leave the timeframe eternally open...still that if it ever increases...you're position is correct?!
PLC - "It's ignorant to think that these policies will have an immediate recognizable blatant impact."
So, you agree with us that the senator in the OP is ignorant?
Great. Only took a year and 1600 posts.
Did I ascribe a specific time frame to it?
No I did not. So why would you? And then try to hold me to the time frame you chose?
Again, your ignorance is showing. You expect these policies to have overnight drastic effects. Real life doesnt work like that. Time will tell how these policies are going to impact the crime rate.
Since you just stated that the senator was ignorant (after all, he did claim that these policies had an immediate, recognizable blatant impact by blaming the ending of SQF)...what exactly was the point of this thread?
"You expect these policies to have overnight drastic effects. "
No, I think we've been **very clear** in our thoughts on using short term measures to gauge long term trends.
You, on the other hand, are trying to imply
Oh, I can tell you that that State Senator is ignorant for a million reasons! Just as ignorant as you for saying the opposite.
Thank you for admitting your ignorance.
short term effects by emphasizing these year by year comparisons.
Nice try, but you can't have it both ways.
What ignorance did I admit?
I pointed out your inconsistency, and yet that somehow means I admitted something.
You make zero sense.
Is murder up? Is rape up? Is robbery up?
Here's my stance. I think that taking the SQF tool away from Police Officers is wrong. I think it's a good lawful tool that helps keep crime down. I think that by taking this tool away, the crime rate will go up.
I think taking this tool away emboldens criminals to carry guns. When criminals have less to worry about from Police, crime goes up. I think it makes the general public less safe.
I think that if these policies continue to be implemented and enforced, crime will go up. Especially violent crime.
I don't think it will happen overnight. Just like brining the murder rate down didnt happen over night. These things take time. What we see now in the stats is violent crime going in the wrong direction.
I, at no point, said crime is currently through the roof. I, at no time, said we should look at crime in a week to week comparison. These are just a few of the strawman arguments you guys use.
It just shows your anger. Your inability to respect other people opinion and your inability to be reasonable or rational.
I hope I am wrong. I hope that crime stays down. I hope that the Police are allowed to do their jobs. Without interference from the peanut gallery. From anyone who feels that they can make an informed decision
"What we see now in the stats is violent crime going in the wrong direction."
We saw that last year too, as Racer pointed out in reference to the doom and gloom of the OP.
Facts show that 2014 ended with historic lows.
based on nothing more than a 9 second video clip showing only one small piece of an incident.
People who dont, and dont want to know or understand the law. People who would never in a million years do the hard work the people theyre second guessing do.
ANYONE who breaks the law should be held accountable. Anyone. No exceptions. And I still hold that Police Officers are held accountable for their actions. Just as much, if not more than the public.
No system is perfect. Sometime things fall through the cracks. While unfortunate, its a fact of life.
"And I still hold that Police Officers are held accountable for their actions. Just as much, if not more than the public."
Facts don't support that claim either.
"No system is perfect. Sometime things fall through the cracks"
And whistleblowers are valuable for preventing things from being pushed through the cracks.
And we've seen how those whistleblowers are celebrated.
LOL. Your ignorance is showing again.
We've posted examples of whistleblowers turned into pariahs.
The data above refutes your claim that their held more accountable for their actions. In fact, it says the opposite of your claim.
Since the data doesn't quite fit your claims - and you still think you are right - that'd make you the ignorant one.
"It's ignorant to think that these policies will have an immediate recognizable blatant impact."
"Murder is up."
Are you retarded?
"You expect these policies to have overnight drastic effects. Real life doesnt work like that."
"Is murder up? Is rape up? Is robbery up?"
Seriously...are you mentally handicapped?
You're trying so desperately to not get caught actually committing to a position...that you're arguing against yourself at this point.
"Have you seen the NYC murder rate? Shooting incident rate? Are you really going to ignore the here and now?"
"You expect these policies to have overnight drastic effects. Real life doesnt work like that. Time will tell how these policies are going to impact the crime rate."
God, you make this so easy.
You are an idiot. Thank you for once again confirming that.
And again. Murder is up. Rape is up. Robbery is up. Sex crimes are up. Ignore that all you want. The facts are there.
So...is the current violent crime rate significant and correlated to the end of stop and frisk or not?
If not...why the fück do you keep bringing it up?
If so...why are last year's record low numbers not also significant and correlated to the end of stop and frisk?
"The directive on racial profiling warns officers not to take enforcement action based "even in part on a person's actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity or national origin" unless race is part of a reliable description of a suspect."
Remember when you said
"when the victim says "white" "black" "Spanish" "Asian" or whatever, the police must ignore that."
...and I told you you were wrong?
Yeah... you were wrong.
"So...is the current violent crime rate significant and correlated to the end of stop and frisk or not?" It very well could be. Time will tell. At this point, I believe there is a correlation.
"If so...why are last year's record low numbers not also significant and correlated to the end of stop and frisk?" Last year was the first year of the court decision based policy change. These effects take time.
Something Ive been trying to tell you but apparently youre to stupid to understand that. Being from Georgia and all. LMAO!
That ad is from 2013...and completely false.
The bill DID pass.
And it says nothing at all what the ad claims it says.
Here it is...again.
You really should give it a read.
It doesn't say any of the things that ad has scared you into believing.
Your misleading ad claims "it will ban cops from identifying a suspect’s age, gender, color or disability."
Can you quote the text in the bill that orders that?
Just today. It's getting crazy out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo
No, I didn't write this. http://nypost.com/2015/09/16/condemning-cops-without-all-the-facts-is-outrageously-unfair/
And both are correct.
BTW, saying "The NYPD union" implies that there is one NYPD union which is not true.
Lynch is suggesting that LEO's should be above criticism by saying these most of journalists can never be qualified to judge their actions.
Nobody is above criticism, and that's where he's wrong (and you as well).
That's not what he's suggesting at all. That's what you wanted to read.
"...come to instant conclusions that an officer's actions were wrong based upon nothing but a silent video." "your uninformed rhetoric..." "...until there is a full and complete investigation."
"That is why no one should ever jump to an uninformed conclusion based upon a few seconds of video. Let all the facts lead where they will..."
"...another knee-jerk reaction from ivory tower pundits who enjoy the safety provided by our police department without understanding the very real risks that we take to provide that safety."
"Due process is the American way of obtaining justice, not summary professional execution called for by editorial writers."
What he's saying is that the rush to judgement is wrong. To look at the whole picture before passing judgement. Journalists have a responsibility to report without bias. They are failing.
it's so easy to rush to judgement when no real or pertinent information will be forthcoming.
cops should be attending neighborhood councils regularly to educate the community the how, when, why, and what the reasoning is behind their actions.
Northwest Torrance, Torrance, CA
the communities can educate the cops what is needed.
So you condone the rush to judgment? I don't. The media has failed at its responsibility. Journalism is a dead art.
"If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when approached them for breaking a law, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of police officers putting
and its a new week with a new set of murder stats for plc!
themselves in harm's way for the public good."
That's not what he's suggesting at all.
If you read his words, that exactly what he suggested.
"So you condone the rush to judgment? I don't."
"Hanging your hat on the claims made by savages."
-PLC, earlier in this thread
WTF? Maybe you should read what he said WITHOUT disregarding everything else he said. It's pretty clear.
What does this tell you? "That is why no one should ever jump to an uninformed conclusion based upon a few seconds of video. Let all the facts lead where they will..."
Skal, why would you condone the rush to judgement?
Do YOU honestly feel youre qualified to judge the actions of police officers? We can all have our opinions but do you think the media has the right to call for this officer's firing without knowing the facts?
Hey Josh! How's Rayvon doing?
"Maybe you should read what he said WITHOUT disregarding everything else he said"
I'm not disregarding anything else he said. I just pointed out what he did say.
I have strong doubts these journalists will be joining the force anytime soon. In Lynch's reasoning, they would then be forever unqualified to judge their actions.
That sounds like he's saying they're above criticism
"Do YOU honestly feel you're qualified to judge the actions of police officers?"
Are qualifications necessary?
Did you just answer a question with a question?
Qualifications aren't necessary to form an opinion. Qualifications should be necessary when the media calls for an Officers firing based on very little information and very little insight.
Maybe I'm placing too much weight on the word "judging".
Anyone can form an opinion and base it on whatever they wish. I believe the media has a greater responsibility when doing this.
So some dude in Minnesota who doesnt know anything about actual police work besides what he googled may judge, have an opinion. But it obviously doesnt mean a damn thing. Just a dude with an opinion.
But the media has a responsibility report fairly and honestly. Void of bias. Can we say theyre living up to that?
"Did you just answer a question with a question?"
Yes, I did. More rhetorical though. As in, I don't think qualifications are necessary.
There you go with the geography thing again. Like it means anything.
"Qualifications should be necessary when the media calls for an Officers firing based on very little information and very little insight."
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
"But the media has a responsibility report fairly and honestly. Void of bias. Can we say theyre living up to that?"
There's a difference between a journalist and a commentator. You are complaining about a commentator.
I'm not the media.
The journalists are reporting that James Blake is demanding he gets fired.
Some commentators are agreeing with that same demand.
You should really learn the difference.
@PLC - have you ever been a reporter?
If not, I don't think your qualified to sit in judgement of those who are.
Cedar Bluff, TN, USA
And geography does mean something. As does experience. And learning. And a whole lot of things.
Your opinion of the going ons in Minnesota have more weight than mine. Understandably so. I fully expect you to disagree. Why wouldn't you? Admitting this weakens your already weak positions.
"Your opinion of the going ons in Minnesota have more weight than mine"
With some things, yes.
However, objective data trumps geography, personal beliefs and biases.
I can believe whatever I want about the "going ons" in Minnesota, but if the data doesn't match with my beliefs, and some guy from NYC calls me out on it...I'm demonstrably wrong.
Ain't objective data great?
I'm surprised you know what objective data is.
Whether or not the officer should be fired is not objective data. Whether the officer should have taken Blake to the ground isnt objective. Whether the officer had the right to stop this man is objective data.
You make your whole argument based on subjective data then claim that objective data has anything to do with this. Thats entertaining.
As in, I don't think qualifications are necessary,There you go with the geography thing again. Like it means anythingYeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man You are complaining about a commentator.
"You make your whole argument based on subjective data then claim that objective data has anything to do with this."
What argument did I make with subjective data, again?
"Whether the officer had the right to stop this man is objective data."
"I'm surprised you know what objective data is."
WOW. The stupid. It burns.
The funny thing is, I don't think you'll understand what you just did there.
Explain it to me. I'm so stupid and you're so smart. Please. Explain it to me like I'm 5.
Reasons that people can be stopped are defined by objective criteria.
Determining if someone meets those criteria is a subjective judgment.
A judgment is not data. It's an action.