As much as I like the outcome when they find some scrub with an illegal gun and/or drugs, we have a constitution protecting us from this type of behavior by law enforcement.
CNN Uses Man Who Made Kardashian Sex Tape To Attack Kanye West
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
You can agree with Kanye or you can agree with law enforcement (who say it does work).
As PrchJrkr said, work or not the Constitution is supposed to protect us from that behavior by L.E.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I understand you are willing to ignore the constitution when it makes you feel warm and fuzzy (plus you have something in common with Michael Bloomberg, congrats!), but I am not. You rant and rave about "stalinists" while you enjoy #### like this.
Property and violent crime rates were falling before stop and frisk (S&F) and the NYPD didn't stop and frisk people with whom they had reasonable suspicion were about to commit a crime, they did so indiscriminately.
Between January 2004 and June 2012, the NYPD conducted over 4.4 million stops.
In 52% of the 4.4 million stops, the person stopped was black, in 31% the person was Hispanic, and in 10% the person was white.
In 2010, New York City’s resident population was roughly 23% black, 29% Hispanic, and 33% white.
Weapons were seized in 1.0% of the stops of blacks, 1.1% of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4% of the stops of whites.
Between 2004 and 2009, the percentage of stops where the officer failed to state a specific suspected crime rose from 1% to 36%.
Last edited:
Remarkably similar distribution when compared to the annual stats for NYC criminal activity, where the race of suspect and/or arrested person was determined (which is in roughly half of the incidents).
Go figure.
Last edited:
I don't even know why you say the stupid #### you say. I don't believe I have defended Stop and Frisk - I was merely refuting your assertion that:
And indeed I provided you with two credible sources.
But you feel free to look foolish by going off on these strawman rants.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I don't even know why you say the stupid #### you say. I don't believe I have defended Stop and Frisk - I was merely refuting your assertion that:
And indeed I provided you with two credible sources.
But you feel free to look foolish by going off on these strawman rants.
Threads like this, where you show no love for the constitution like a good stalinist.
http://forums.somd.com/threads/333945-This-is-where-we-re-at-in-this-day-and-age
Good sources?
The first was a radio show where the guest was a WaPo columnist.
You saying WaPo is a good source now?The second was a picture made by some undergrads citing sources from 1960s.
If the program worked it wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional.
That statement made no sense. Lots of things can - and have - met the goals set forth for them; i.e "worked", that were later determined to be unconstitutional. Conversely, lots of things that have completely failed to work were/are constitutional. Hell, the latter describes probably the majority of the Federal government.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Go get your talking points from the handlers, then try again.
Cute, but not based on reality. The reality is, I've voiced my opinion on this matter for years now. I have no desire to argue with you about it as you don't appear to have the same zeal with anyone else's same opinion on the matter. You just want to argue with me and don't want to read anything I post (as evidenced earlier in the thread) anyway, so why waste my time?
Well that makes us more than even because you don't even read my posts before you "respond" to them.
Maybe it's because I don't speak in codes and dog whistles.
You're right, I don't, and I've told you why at least a dozen times. But you don't read my posts.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I literally walked you thought both your sources. That would indicate to most sane people that I did, in fact, read them. Good lord.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Now THAT was funny...
Yea, my bad. Wasting time is your forte'.
I rest my case.
I literally walked you thought both your sources. That would indicate to most sane people that I did, in fact, read them. Good lord.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
You rest your case by proving that I did read your posts?
Try again.
MiddleGround
Well-Known Member
You rest your case by proving that I did read your posts?
Looks like a desperate attempt to not lose her argument by splitting hairs as to the difference between reading her "posts" and her "sources" (which were in the posts)
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Looks like a desperate attempt to not lose her argument by splitting hairs as to the difference between reading her "posts" and her "sources" (which were in the posts)
Right, and most sane people (I keep using this for a reason) would understand that the subject of the post was, in fact, her "posts". My proof was that I posted the details of her sources (which, believe it or not, were in her posts. Crazy, I know.) only found by reading them, thus reading her posts.
So, when I said "them", in a discussion about Vrai's posts she misunderstood and that's my problem. It's always my problem they can't carry a conversation on the internet in the same exact way they'd carry one in the real world (not sure how often that happens).
Stop and Frisk is bad. It's against the very tenets of our constitution, but miss North Korea can't be bothered with that, nor can she be bothered arguing her points with anyone else who agrees. Only me. All the while she argues how biased everyone else is.
Show me where in this thread I personally said Stop and Frisk is a good thing. All I did was provide sources that refute your false statement.