The murders in big cities keep stacking up
- Thread starter GeorgeDubya
- Start date
Start taking out these criminals and murderers will put an end to these senseless killings. Talking about it, protesting, isn’t working as it is only getting worse.
By stop vilifying the police and let them do their jobs. Allow people to get involved by stopping crime in the stores without being prosecuted. Quit treating criminals as endangered species. Stop treating criminals as victims and victims as criminals. Until this happens then more of the same. It will continue to get a whole lot worse as we are seeing.
You must be glad that the Atlanta police took out, as you would characterize it, big time gangsta Tyree Nychols.
Difficult to impossible if each family and person of age can't protect them selves or hindered due to trying to protect themselves. So, that might work for a few or some, but not for most, because many will not see the responsibility to do such. So how do you reduce or start to reduce this problem. Obviously this was not a problem a couple of decades ago and less time than that for some. What places inside a mind that they are wronged, cheated, taken advantage of that when coupled with no sense of value in life that the response is a stupid as it is? Still, looking at the immoral faces of so many today is harder than blaming something that sounds good for a simple, not thought out response to show the world that the person on the mike has the answer, when the reality is it comes back to the coarseness in people today by various means
"Obviously this was not a problem a couple of decades ago". This has been a problem in large cities like Chicago, LA, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. I would say since the 50's when black numbers increased amassed in the particular areas of these cities that were poor and hopeless. To get quick, money, drug trafficking and gangs were in these areas and never left. I grew up in the late 60s and early 70s right next to Gary, IN. Gary was considered at that time amongst other cities, as the murder capital of the world. When the 80s came the crack epidemic began, exacerbated by gansta rap music decimated the black communities in these areas o the city. In my opinion, what is currently going on with the violence in these cities is the direct result of the crack epidemic. The bottom line is that what's happening with murders in these cities is nothing new and has been around for decades.
For those that don't believe that there is no systemic racism, the legal system during the height of the 80s crack epidemic was the epitome of systemic racism. For example, a black person would get caught with 2 oz of crack cocaine would get a much harsher sentence that a white person in the suburbs with 20 oz. of powdered cocaine. This is before the 90s crime bill before the person that argued with me about this before brings that up.
The short answer is no. Any outside intervention has not and will not totally eradicate the problem. I've always said that murders and violence are not going to stop until the folks living in these areas decide to stop on their own. The teenagers and young adults committing these murders have been exposed to violence since birth, most by single mothers, along with the baby daddy, may be criminals themselves. Since this issue have going on for decades. That’s all they know. They may even have some sort of PTSD. As young kids I believe that their brains have not fully developed as a result. They seem to not to be able to resolve conflict. They seem to not have the ability to know the consequences of their actions.
You can arrest here, stop and harass there, whatever, the violence is not going to stop. Sure it may decrease some. You may go from 600 murders a year to 400. 400 is still a lot. Next thing you know it’s back up to 800. All of the so called tougher policing that has been proposed and have been implemented have no major impact in the reduction in the crime and murders.
Yes, I realize in the large cities it went on and I also understand the sentencing of crack and so yes in the large cities the problem has lasted for decades, but the growth recently across the country shows the expansion and so that urban, ghetto culture has taken wings much more recently that decades ago. Cities have always had issues, especially cities rant by democrats for a variety of reasons. Chicago has always had issues, but Indianapolis didn't and it isn't near as safe today...and I'm your age. However, "systemic" of a "system" of racism in not shown by a type of sentencing that took place. There is no "system" that dictates racism, but there are examples inside a system.
Death penalty. Any premeditated crime committed at gun point should land you feet first in a wood chipper.
Stop n harass did not work. And was eventually deemed unconstitutional. Stop n harass may sound good on paper. But unfortunately, the NYC police took it further. The police were only suppose stop people if they had just cause. The NYC were stopping any black person that they could find. They were stopping blacks going to work. Going to church. Professors going to the city colleges etc. plus only a small percentage of guns were found. So, no it did not work and will never work.
I'll agree with you. The leaders in cities like Chicago who created high rise ghettos sentenced many a good family to multiple generations of despair. And the machines who built them are still in place. So tell me. Who forced all the black people into the Robert Taylor? Cabrini? Henry Horner? Then, when they realized that some of that real estate was much more valuable for their friends to develop, they pushed old ladies OUT of their homes of 70 years and forced them to Harvey or Dolton so some condos could be built? This is the real evil. And yet nobody (except people like me) have any interest in holding these people accountable.
police are incentivized to make the easier arrests for the easier observable offenses
-less than half of violent crimes lead to arrest/prosecution
-less than 5% of arrests are for serious violent crime
-less than half of violent crimes lead to arrest/prosecution
-less than 5% of arrests are for serious violent crime
Used to work in Indy Central Twp projects. Wondered to my coworkers why people would live in those conditions.
Their answer: Housing subsidies
Pure evil. Program seemed to herd the poor into one big Getto Hell.
Couple that with a Teachers Union that would not allow school choice, protected bad teachers and thus kept the poor in a prison with no educational escape.
Thus, that's the time I switched from Democrat to Republican.
Do not understand Dem voters who by their votes continue to back this evil.
Last edited:
It absolutely worked. Statistics prove it. I know you don't like to believe in actual facts and stats, but SnF did reduce crime.
If they employed SnF in Chicago and it dropped the murder rate by 50%, would you be in favor of it?
I don’t know what stats you are looking at but stop and frisk clearly did not work. SnF rarely ended up any arrests let alone finding guns on the individuals.
As far as SnF in Chicago, again in order for it to work the police cannot abuse the law. So yeah, I’ll be for it if the data shows that SnF was the sole reason for the drop in crime. But that is a hypothetical. NYC showed that it did not work. It wasn’t even constructional in NYC. May not be in Chicago if they wanted to implement it.
Stop-and-Frisk Data - NYCLU
www.nyclu.org
Without the data, but just comparing lines it appears that there may be a relationship between stop and frisk and arrests. However, it is obviously inefficient under the democratic leadership of which the data was used. I tried looking for Rudy's data and couldn't really find anything. Others that spent the time might find something on Rudy. What I did find about Rudy without the data on effectiveness was criticism for having it...which was no surprise, but it would be nice to see the actual data for better understanding rather than being told things other than the effectiveness. I just recall a couple of long time New Yorkers that are very liberal socially that credited Rudy for improving the safety of the city at the time and so seeing data on Rudy in comparison to the democratic leadership would be more interesting that reading comments...for me anyway...and whatever the data...there are still questions...I don’t know what stats you are looking at but stop and frisk clearly did not work. SnF rarely ended up any arrests let alone finding guns on the individuals.
As far as SnF in Chicago, again in order for it to work the police cannot abuse the law. So yeah, I’ll be for it if the data shows that SnF was the sole reason for the drop in crime. But that is a hypothetical. NYC showed that it did not work. It wasn’t even constructional in NYC. May not be in Chicago if they wanted to implement it.
Stop-and-Frisk Data - NYCLU
There were no democratic leadership under which stop n harass was used. Bloomberg was an independent. By the time or shortly after DeBlasio got in, it was deemed unconstitutional and not used anymore.
How can it work when not many arrested were made and not many guns were taken off of the streets. Plus the fact that the NYC police were stopping any black and brown people whether they had just cause to stop them or not. That is the main issue that I have with the program.
How can it work when not many arrested were made and not many guns were taken off of the streets. Plus the fact that the NYC police were stopping any black and brown people whether they had just cause to stop them or not. That is the main issue that I have with the program.
I've posted Rudy's data before. Probably multiple times. BNI just purposely dense.
You are the one that is dense. You're ignoring the data I posted. I guess stop and harass could work if cops only stopped folks that they had just cause to stop.
You didn’t call somebody else dense and then accuse them of ignoring data with a straight face, I hope…
Coming from the king of dense/dumb who ignores data and facts more than anybody on the board (you), this post is really something 😂
Well, I apparently missed it as well. Obviously if it shows it being more efficient than the timelines in BNI's data then the question is why. It appeared that BNIs data had a positive correlation with arrests, but was very inefficient. There are a LOT of reasons that could explain that...a LOT and why I was curious if Rudy's data was out there. You don't need to find it for me...we are all busy. I suspect based upon anecdotal evidence of years ago that Rudy was much more effective in arrests and then the obvious questions are why? Different criteria for arrest...different sampling plans based upon some criteria outside of random sampling...profiling, which if done correctly would improve efficiency
Rudy's policies dropped violent crime 56 percent.
My God dude.
I’m Region born and bred.
Grade school, high school, College.
My family has worked steel for the last 80 years and still does.
I worked steel to pay tuition.
Two trades.
Still got the cards. You feel me yet?
And if you are to be believed in even a cursory way - you and I may be of similar age.
Powder didn’t kill Gary.
Corruption killed Gary.
Hatcher killed Gary.
Dirty Councilmen killed Gary.
Police officers forced to roll through stop lights on Broadway for fear of being shot at killed Gary.
The good people at Milan’s would testify for me
but they killed them too.
The Glen at 49th going from
Disney movies to porn overnight killed Gary.
“The Man” ain’t hearing you and never will.
You’re not educating anyone.
You do outrage. You good at it too Kotex!
You still up here?
You working the problem or did you run?
Please.
The other major factor that studies which say “stop and frisk didn’t increase attests or gun confiscation” is that they don’t control for the deterrent of SnF. Criminals are less likely to carry when they know they can be busted for a gun charge. So even without arrests it helps decrease crime.
Man y’all can twist yourselves into knots trying to deflect this. Deny that. Stop and harass did not lead to increase arrests and confiscation because most of the folks they stopped, again without just cause, were not criminals at all. And that’s my problem with stop and harass. Not because the criminal decided not to carry a gun fearing getting caught.
Talk to a Chicago cop. The Obama justice department consent decree basically forced Chicago police to stop any proactive policing. Cops would tell me they knew guys had guns on them but nobody will risk their job if they are wrong because they had to fill our contact cards for every stop. So now Chicago cops like most big progressive cities sit in their cars and come to put yellow tape around the chalk outlines. It’s not worth it, What SnF did is make a lot fewer people take guns on the street. Now nobody thinks twice about carrying a gun. But of course that was when prosecutors actually prosecuted gun crimes.
But I am glad to see you are back. So I’ll ask again. Who sentenced people to lives of despair in Cabrini, Robert Taylor, and Henry Horner - away from their families and into shit schools. And then kicked them out their homes and into the suburbs so the next generation of machine family members could wet their beaks?
Here’s an item you should read. It states specifically that proactive policing in crime hit spots is the one demonstrated tactic that continues to provide results and backs up what I said in that if criminals have no fear of being stopped they have no reason to not carry weapons and drugs.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-worth-remembering-rush-criticize-ncna1151121
First of all, whether it works or not stop and harass was deemed unconstitutional. I’ve always said that it could work if the police done it correctly. My beef with stop and harass is that the police were stopping people, blacks in particular that had no just cause to be stopped at all. Stop and harassbsays that you have to have just cause that that individual may have a gun or committed a crime before you can stop and harass. Blacks going to work, city colleges, parks etc. that were being stopped unnecessarily. That’s the problem that I had with it. Seems like cops were stopping any black person that they can see just to document that they stopped someone. That’s the reason why there were so many non arrests and very little guns found. That is not right.
Here is another article that says that but didn’t work.
www.governing.com
Here is another article that says that but didn’t work.
There Is No Real Evidence that Stop-and-Frisk Helps Reduce Crime
Some are advocating bringing it back. But it doesn’t get many guns off the streets, it exacts a heavy toll on those who are stopped, and it corrodes trust in police.
www.governing.com
This article is a joke. It says it didn’t reduce crime yet fails to show the data in violent crime after the implementation of SnF. For proof they refer you to a brief period for NYC of 3 years after (2011-2014) and saying not much change. So see no difference. This article is from 2022. A critical reader says, why did you stop at 2014? Data is obviously available. Probably because crime increased. This is similar to global warming enthusiasts who truncate data and fail to include warm periods in the first half of the 1900s because it would basically show no change. Also they argue that if you take the gun off the street it will be backfilled by another gun (which I will agree to). HOWEVER, completely ignoring the fact that if somebody was carrying an illegal firearm they should be prosecuted and removed from neighborhood. Thus protecting the community. It’s not the gun. It’s the individual who commits the crime. This shows you the authors bias. They freaking don’t even note the felony act that would result in the removal of the individual from the community?!?!First of all, whether it works or not stop and harass was deemed unconstitutional. I’ve always said that it could work if the police done it correctly. My beef with stop and harass is that the police were stopping people, blacks in particular that had no just cause to be stopped at all. Stop and harassbsays that you have to have just cause that that individual may have a gun or committed a crime before you can stop and harass. Blacks going to work, city colleges, parks etc. that were being stopped unnecessarily. That’s the problem that I had with it. Seems like cops were stopping any black person that they can see just to document that they stopped someone. That’s the reason why there were so many non arrests and very little guns found. That is not right.
Here is another article that says that but didn’t work.
There Is No Real Evidence that Stop-and-Frisk Helps Reduce Crime
Some are advocating bringing it back. But it doesn’t get many guns off the streets, it exacts a heavy toll on those who are stopped, and it corrodes trust in police.
So if I can, your logic is that if there is a chance that I can be stopped and searched this in no way changes my decision to carry an illegal firearm?
You can debate it was discriminatory but humans will change behavior based upon risk and penalty . Please see why mass retail theft is in districts where prosecutors no longer prosecute retail theft (or looting) is rampant: And every one less person walking around with a gun is a reduction in the probability that some 4 year old tragically gets shot as collateral damage.
Opinion | It's easy to criticize stop-and-frisk. It's harder to wrestle with its real legacy.
New York went too far with the practice, but it helped reduce a staggering crime rate that damaged communities far more than the tactics used by police.
www.nbcnews.com
First of all, whether it works or not stop and harass was deemed unconstitutional. I’ve always said that it could work if the police done it correctly. My beef with stop and harass is that the police were stopping people, blacks in particular that had no just cause to be stopped at all. Stop and harassbsays that you have to have just cause that that individual may have a gun or committed a crime before you can stop and harass. Blacks going to work, city colleges, parks etc. that were being stopped unnecessarily. That’s the problem that I had with it. Seems like cops were stopping any black person that they can see just to document that they stopped someone. That’s the reason why there were so many non arrests and very little guns found. That is not right.
Here is another article that says that but didn’t work.
There Is No Real Evidence that Stop-and-Frisk Helps Reduce Crime
Some are advocating bringing it back. But it doesn’t get many guns off the streets, it exacts a heavy toll on those who are stopped, and it corrodes trust in police.
I'll ask again....If SnF was implemented on the south and west sides of Chicago (and even in high crime areas on the north side like Rogers Park and Loyola) and it reduced violent/gun crimes by 50%, would you be in favor of it?
I answered this already. If it reduced crime by 50% maybe it was because the police implemented the program correctly by concentrating and stopping people with just cause to stop them. So, if that is the case, then yeah. But in reality and like what happened in NYC and why it was deemed unconstitutional is that the cops did not just stop people, mostly blacks for just cause. They were stopping mostly black people whether the cops had just cause or not. They were stopping black folks going to work, city colleges, church, etc. That is what I and most black folks have a problem with.
They also commit a lot more crimes by percentage and it isn't even close. Maybe get your community together and look at some of the reasons there are these stereotypes? Look at NBA players, JA Morant, Others looking like they just got out of prison. Things like wearing ''hoodies'' on 90 degree days . I see stores and not saying others dont wear them as well but have signs about do not enter with a hood up. They aren't going to say anything on a snowy day or raining when you walk in and put it down. 90 degrees and a hood all cinched down? Just on example. If you don't want to call attention to yourself dont do things that draw that kind of attention to yourself
Ok, fair enough. Let's say it is mostly black people who get stopped. Why do you think that is?
In Chicago, where do most of the shootings and violent crime take place? It's pretty concentrated in the hoods on the south/west sides, (and Rogers Park on the northside).
And, who is doing most of those shootings? The vast majority, (probably greater than 90%) is black gang bangers and some Hispanic. It aint white folks. Therefore, it's makes sense that the cops heavily patrol and implement SnF in these areas, not around Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville. So, yeh, in the areas seeing most of the violent crimes/shooting, it's going to be blacks stopped for SnF.
