I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24.Just because you belong to a group more likely to commit a crime does not absolve you of your constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Treating the individual involved as if they don't have their full rights as a citizen because they are more likely to commit a crime deprives them of their equal protection under the law.
You misunderstand me by omitting the rest of my argument. If this group is disproportionately likely to actually be up to no good and suspicious behavior (something near-universally recognized by criminologists, who have moved on to arguing about why this is the case), it makes sense that this is the group stopped disproportionately. It's not like they are supposed to pick people to frisk at random, so expecting it to appear as a random sample from the population doesn't make any sense. (That would be the TSA, and look how well that's working out.)
I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24.Just because you belong to a group more likely to commit a crime does not absolve you of your constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Treating the individual involved as if they don't have their full rights as a citizen because they are more likely to commit a crime deprives them of their equal protection under the law.
Man, I am really falling behind. I gotta get out there and commit some crimes!!!!
Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another?
I'm a bit lost on where it isn't. Am I misreading? Is there spot that says some people aren't subject to the exact same law?
Unreasonable searches, well heres the party, reasonable is subjective isn't it, and in 20% of cases appears to be well founded. Show me a better way to achieve a higher result.
One in five of the offenders being stopped is found to be breaking the law, there's no escaping that, no matter how 'racist' you would like to claim it is. What I'd like to know is why is the figure so high? That 20% is pretty significant.
Why are all these people doing the wrong thing?
You misunderstand me by omitting the rest of my argument. If this group is disproportionately likely to actually be up to no good and suspicious behavior (something near-universally recognized by criminologists, who have moved on to arguing about why this is the case), it makes sense that this is the group stopped disproportionately. It's not like they are supposed to pick people to frisk at random, so expecting it to appear as a random sample from the population doesn't make any sense. (That would be the TSA, and look how well that's working out.)I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24.Just because you belong to a group more likely to commit a crime does not absolve you of your constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Treating the individual involved as if they don't have their full rights as a citizen because they are more likely to commit a crime deprives them of their equal protection under the law.
Oh man, it's worse than I thought. Is there a kit or package I can get to live up to my people's reputation as being 50% evil? Actually, this helps, as my wife is black too- I know I haven't committed any violent crimes, I better check her out. And my MOTHER! She's black too. By the numbers, one of us must be a criminal. I always knew that mother of mine was up to something!!!!!
Oh man, it's worse than I thought. Is there a kit or package I can get to live up to my people's reputation as being 50% evil?
I think my nephew bought that package, It's not as glamourous as whats on the tin.
Recommend: Don't buy :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another?I'm a bit lost on where it isn't. Am I misreading? Is there spot that says some people aren't subject to the exact same law?
Unreasonable searches, well heres the party, reasonable is subjective isn't it, and in 20% of cases appears to be well founded. Show me a better way to achieve a higher result.
One in five of the offenders being stopped is found to be breaking the law, there's no escaping that, no matter how 'racist' you would like to claim it is. What I'd like to know is why is the figure so high? That 20% is pretty significant.
Why are all these people doing the wrong thing?
Considering the amount of NYC cops that have gotten into trouble for cooking their books to keep up such numbers, I'm not sure the people who are being stopped are the ones who are doing the wrong thing here.
Yeah ok I get it that there's a fewjaded and cyncial people here.
Rather than it be the case that a lot of people are actually breaking the law lets instead insinuate or accuse of cooking books and complaining its all about racism.
The point is that the people complaining about the scheme jump up and down in heated breathless outrage about the 80% who were stopped and doing nothing wrong, as though 20% being picked up for criminal activity is somehow a low figure.
I'm curious to know why so many ARE up to no good, and I'm much more interested in fixing the cause of a lot of street crime, as opposed to having a complain about how it is being detected and intercepted.\
Fix the first one and the second one solves itself.
You misunderstand me by omitting the rest of my argument. If this group is disproportionately likely to actually be up to no good and suspicious behavior (something near-universally recognized by criminologists, who have moved on to arguing about why this is the case), it makes sense that this is the group stopped disproportionately. It's not like they are supposed to pick people to frisk at random, so expecting it to appear as a random sample from the population doesn't make any sense. (That would be the TSA, and look how well that's working out.)Oh man, it's worse than I thought. Is there a kit or package I can get to live up to my people's reputation as being 50% evil? Actually, this helps, as my wife is black too- I know I haven't committed any violent crimes, I better check her out. And my MOTHER! She's black too. By the numbers, one of us must be a criminal. I always knew that mother of mine was up to something!!!!!
It's not 50% of the black population. Criminal activities are obviously not spread evenly through a community. The accepted estimate in criminology is that 6% of the population commits 60% of the crime, for instance. (Some studies have shown that 50% of the black male population will end up with some chargeable offense and arrest on their record, though.)
I suspect that the stops are not evenly distributed through the minority population, but rather a smaller subset receives a disproportionate amount of police attention. This coincides with the concept that it is a subset of the overall black community that is disproportionately committing crime - it is disproportionate to the overall black population, which heavily skews disproportionality of the black population in relation to the overall population.
My point, if I haven't been clear, is that the NYPD (who I admit I am not an expert on by any means on most of their operating procedures) selects targets based on actual behavior rather than skin color or random chance. It appears to be selected on skin color because the people disproportionately likely to be exhibiting that behavior are of said skin color.
Yeah ok I get it that there's a fewjaded and cyncial people here.
Rather than it be the case that a lot of people are actually breaking the law lets instead insinuate or accuse of cooking books and complaining its all about racism.
The point is that the people complaining about the scheme jump up and down in heated breathless outrage about the 80% who were stopped and doing nothing wrong, as though 20% being picked up for criminal activity is somehow a low figure.
I'm curious to know why so many ARE up to no good, and I'm much more interested in fixing the cause of a lot of street crime, as opposed to having a complain about how it is being detected and intercepted.\
Fix the first one and the second one solves itself.
When you are one of the 80% and you are harrassed on a regular basis under the guise of keeping the city safe, you will do a fair amount of jumping up and down as well. 20% is a figure too low to account for such a practice from where I'm standing. What would be too low a figure for you to account for stop and frisk?
Insinuations? Accusations? Hardly. If it wasn't 4:49 AM and I wasn't so out of it I'd link you up. Maybe after I've had 40 winks and my mother is certain that her incorrigible son loves her despite rarely calling or visiting.
When you are one of the 80% and you are harrassed on a regular basis under the guise of keeping the city safe, you will do a fair amount of jumping up and down as well. 20% is a figure too low to account for such a practice from where I'm standing. What would be too low a figure for you to account for stop and frisk?
Coming from ana area and background of direspute as well, I am all to familiar with coming under the gaze of local law enforcement. Strangely enough though I found the less I acted suspiciously the less they hassled... not sure what it is you are doing that attracts so much attention, but perhaps a bit more stealth mode required?
Anyhow if it is 20% I'd take it on the chin.
5% not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another?I'm a bit lost on where it isn't. Am I misreading? Is there spot that says some people aren't subject to the exact same law?
The police don't do this anywhere else but poor black neighborhoods because they CANT. If they try to do this anywhere else they get their asses handed to them in court.
Unreasonable searches, well heres the party, reasonable is subjective isn't it
Subjective does not equal non existent. "Furtive movement" which is what they use to justify the searches, does not constitute a reason to stop someone. People are getting nervous around the police because the police keep harassing them... of course they're going to get nervous when the cops show up.
and in 20% of cases appears to be well founded. Show me a better way to achieve a higher result.
That's a pretty sucky average. It means you've just detained and harrased 4 innocent people for no reason.
One in five of the offenders being stopped is found to be breaking the law
No, its carrying drugs OR a weapon. Note that a weapon does not automatically mean an illegal weapon, since knives are legal to carry. (and frankly a good idea. My dad worked down there for the telephone company and had someone bite him)
What I'd like to know is why is the figure so high? That 20% is pretty significant.
Its because there's so many codes rules and regulations that a lot of people are bound to be in violation of one of them if you rifle through all of their stuff. It could be something as dangerous as a gun, a taser (which is illegal in ny) , a 5 inch knife, pot, or even asprin that's not in its original bottle.
Why are all these people doing the wrong thing?
Well they're carrying weapons because they live in a dangerous neighborhood, which is neither wrong nor illegal. Only 1 in 266 were carrying a gun. (0.4%) were carrying a gun, which is only illegal if you can't afford 500 bucks a year for the permit: in other words its legal for rich people but not for poor people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You misunderstand me by omitting the rest of my argument. If this group is disproportionately likely to actually be up to no good and suspicious behavior (something near-universally recognized by criminologists, who have moved on to arguing about why this is the case), it makes sense that this is the group stopped disproportionately.
I understand you perfectly. The problem is you're wrong.
You. Can't. Do. That.
The street is not an airport. You cannot stop people at random and search them. They have a constitutional right against being searched on grounds as flimsy as "furtive movement" or "they looked nervous".
I'm not being politically correct and saying that blacks don't cause a disproportionately large amount of crime: they do. I'm saying that even though that's true and the program would be useful in stopping crime you still can't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyhow if it is 20% I'd take it on the chin.5% not so much.
Well, then please look at the numbers. As you will see, your 1 in 5 statistic comes from a sloppy reading of the sloppily written wikipedia article.
Here's a chart from 2006 (I'm not very internet savvy, I don't know if there's one for more recent years) that breaks down the "suspicious behavior" (3rd chart down) of those stopped.
"Area Has a High Incidence of Crime." "Time of Day Fits Crime Incidence." "Furtive Movements" (anyone remember Amadou Diallou's "furtive movements"?). "Change Direction at Sight of Officer."
Given the evidence strewn throughout the NYCLU's pages and given their recent history, I can't share your touching faith in the NYPD's ability to impartially carry out a program that, imho, is probably unconsitutional to begin with.
When you are one of the 80% and you are harrassed on a regular basis under the guise of keeping the city safe, you will do a fair amount of jumping up and down as well. 20% is a figure too low to account for such a practice from where I'm standing. What would be too low a figure for you to account for stop and frisk?
Coming from ana area and background of direspute as well, I am all to familiar with coming under the gaze of local law enforcement. Strangely enough though I found the less I acted suspiciously the less they hassled... not sure what it is you are doing that attracts so much attention, but perhaps a bit more stealth mode required?
Anyhow if it is 20% I'd take it on the chin.
5% not so much.
Going over the times I've been stopped by the police...
Lots of times it's because they thought I was riding my bike on the sidewalk. There is a great deal of animosity between cyclists and cops in NYC, but that's a story for another time. I'm not giving up my bike for anyone, however, so if that's your solution it's not going to work. Like I said, the cyclist/cop thing is on a different angle in NY than in other places, and that may need to be a topic for another time. However, to bring it into this conversation a bit, I should be able to ride my bike without being harassed.
Another time I was stopped because I was in a train station. I was the only person around, however, so I can't say it was anything malicious(as he did not ignore white passengers to search me), though it was annoying.
Other times I was stopped include when leaving a store(on several occasions), walking through a park(another big issue in NY- park hours not posted and cops assuming everyone in a park after a certain time is out for drugs or something, and a story for another time), and when a big crime went down in the neighborhood(they searched everyone). It wasnt' that I was stopped by the police on these occasions, it's that I was automatically assumed to be the guilty party in all of the situations but the last one, solely because of the color of my skin.
When you are one of the 80% and you are harrassed on a regular basis under the guise of keeping the city safe, you will do a fair amount of jumping up and down as well. 20% is a figure too low to account for such a practice from where I'm standing. What would be too low a figure for you to account for stop and frisk?
Coming from ana area and background of direspute as well, I am all to familiar with coming under the gaze of local law enforcement. Strangely enough though I found the less I acted suspiciously the less they hassled... not sure what it is you are doing that attracts so much attention, but perhaps a bit more stealth mode required?
Anyhow if it is 20% I'd take it on the chin.
5% not so much.
Going over the times I've been stopped by the police...
Lots of times it's because they thought I was riding my bike on the sidewalk. There is a great deal of animosity between cyclists and cops in NYC, but that's a story for another time. I'm not giving up my bike for anyone, however, so if that's your solution it's not going to work. Like I said, the cyclist/cop thing is on a different angle in NY than in other places, and that may need to be a topic for another time. However, to bring it into this conversation a bit, I should be able to ride my bike without being harassed.
Another time I was stopped because I was in a train station. I was the only person around, however, so I can't say it was anything malicious(as he did not ignore white passengers to search me), though it was annoying.
Other times I was stopped include when leaving a store(on several occasions), walking through a park(another big issue in NY- park hours not posted and cops assuming everyone in a park after a certain time is out for drugs or something, and a story for another time), and when a big crime went down in the neighborhood(they searched everyone). It wasnt' that I was stopped by the police on these occasions, it's that I was...
But according to Shifty, and those who think the same way as he, all of that is okay, because for every 7 or 8 times the cops are harassing, embarrassing, and inconveniencing you, they statistically should find someone else guilty of a misdemeanor or two.
That makes it all worth it, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, to me, I think the reason that 20% were found to be committing a crime is because we have to many laws. Its way to easy to commit a crime without even realising it. I think shooting someone for no good reason should be illegal. You shoot someone without a damn good reason, go to jail. Just owning a gun =/= shooting someone. Or another example: I think junkies that steal, burglarise or shoplift to feed their habit should be arrested. Being a junkie =/= stealing to feed a habit.
I guess in summary, I think criminal laws should be punitative, not preventative. (especially in light of how harsh our punishments can be.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Motherf&+#ing frisk-and-search...harshing my buzz, man...this is bullshiznit!!
Moro, you aren't being 'harassed' or 'embarrased', you are being checked upon though. And I do note that even FHDM cites that his experience was generally through being in odd places at odd times OR undertaking activity that he is 100% aware will draw attention. Besides it isn't 1 in 7 or 8, its 1 in 5 of the people they searched, and not everyone is being searched - so your odds of being inconvenienced are pretty low. On the other hand I reckon you'd be the first to holler and wail if you were the victim of crime, so this is the price you pay.
(I base this on how upset you apparently get over interactions with strangers where the worst that happens is you have a chat and empty your pockets, I can only guess how upset you'd be if it also involved what was in your pockets being taken and you were assaulted to boot)
Whilst I would agree with him about the cycling issue (rock solid, we have those stupid laws here too) in these cases the search and 'hassling' came off the back of a reason to be having a conversation. They didn't just pull someone up and search them, there was a cause.
Protip: if you already know the triggers that draw attention from the Police, try not to be too surprised when you do those things and attention gets paid.
Now TWK I reckon you are right, there are probably too many laws that could be cut away, but too many to even know you are breaking one? really?
Yeah, don't wear a hoodie or a big ass knife or be black or brown or anything other than vanilla white and you won't be hassled.
Hang on, wearing a big ass knife is kind of a huge 'SEARCH ME' isn't it?
I know in this country the carriage of a knife gets you a serious fine and possible time in lockup.
Stopping someone based on skin colour and clothes alone is douche behaviour, and its not just having a nice tan gets attention, being 'po white trash' certainly isn't a free pass either. Same in any country in the world. The coulour of ones skin isn't as much a problem, but rather the socio economic status of the person.
Who you reckon is going to be pulled up first, Denzel Washington or Joe Dirt?
In my neighborhood it would be Denzel Washington, because any black man that dresses like him is obviously a crime lord.
Besides it isn't 1 in 7 or 8, its 1 in 5 of the people they searched,
No, it's not.
12% (2011's #) is almost exactly equidistant between 20%, which you thought was acceptable, and 5%, which you thought wasn't.
Protip: if you already know the triggers that draw attention from the Police, try not to be too surprised when you do those things and attention gets paid.
Such as walking in a neighborhood with a high incidence of crime, walking at a time of day with a high incidence of crime, walking while black, etc., etc.
Such as walking in a neighborhood with a high incidence of crime, walking at a time of day with a high incidence of crime
Correct.
I know, radical right, the Police when faced with the high incidence of crime you just mentioned might actually go out and Police it... uncanny.
In my neighborhood it would be Denzel Washington, because any black man that dresses like him is obviously a crime lord.
Nice touch :p
No, what is radical is that they would use being in an area with a high incidence of crime as a reason to ignore the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution.
Anyway, I've got to go do some crimes. I'll be back later.
Have fun stormin the castle!
Have fun stormin the castle!
Thank you.
@Cranewings--Maybe, I don't know. It's possible that "not totally innocent" means that they weren't totally innocent of other weapons violations, but I don't see any reason to assume that based on what I'm reading.
There are some files from the NYPD on that site that might answer the questions, but I can't open them without downloading shiznit, and I'm not going to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moro, you aren't being 'harassed' or 'embarrased', you are being checked upon though. And I do note that even FHDM cites that his experience was generally through being in odd places at odd times OR undertaking activity that he is 100% aware will draw attention. Besides it isn't 1 in 7 or 8, its 1 in 5 of the people they searched, and not everyone is being searched - so your odds of being inconvenienced are pretty low. On the other hand I reckon you'd be the first to holler and wail if you were the victim of crime, so this is the price you pay.
(I base this on how upset you apparently get over interactions with strangers where the worst that happens is you have a chat and empty your pockets, I can only guess how upset you'd be if it also involved what was in your pockets being taken and you were assaulted to boot)
Whilst I would agree with him about the cycling issue (rock solid, we have those stupid laws here too) in these cases the search and 'hassling' came off the back of a reason to be having a conversation. They didn't just pull someone up and search them, there was a cause.
Protip: if you already know the triggers that draw attention from the Police, try not to be too surprised when you do those things and attention gets paid.
Now TWK I reckon you are right, there are probably too many laws that could be cut away, but too many to even know you are breaking one? really?
All I am hearing is "blah blah blah, you should be grateful to live in a police state"
Did you know that living in a police state doesn't mean that a person is more safe, it just means that they have more people to fear, because in addition to being persecuted by criminals they will also likely be persecuted by those with the law on their side?
Having the law on one's side doesn't mean that someone is doing the right thing.
Also, in reference to your statistics, when they are performing random searches of black males more times than there are black men in NYC something is off, as that would mean that a black man not only statistically guaranteed to have his rights violated, but it is possible for it to happen more than once per year.
Shifty, that is not what I said. I wish I could cam up on this Site to show you the size of the facepalm I'm doing right now.
Odd places at odd times? If you look at what I said, you will see that I mentioned that public parks (hardly a strange place) are forgetting to post their hours or lock their gates after they close, which results in problems for everyone who walks through them. Activity that will draw attention? I'm sorry, I'll be sure to cast invisibility upon myself when leaving a store. The only experiences I mentioned that even come close to what you said are when I was in the train station (I was the only person there), and when a huge crime went down and the cops canvassed the neighborhood. Neither of these were behaviors where I was in an odd place at an odd time -the train station is a public place and I kind of live at my house. As for the cycling, we'll, that is such a unique situation that I would say yes, it falls into the category of suspicious behavior under certain circumstances, but it's more deserving of its own thread.
And yes, there are far too many laws that result in stop and frisk practices. The most popular in ny right now is the ban on walking around with open containers of liquid. Police can stop you, claiming you smell like alcohol, and search you. Many people are under the erroneous impression that this law doesn't apply to them because they are drinking soda or water but this isn't true - it's up to the officer's discretion.
Moro, you aren't being 'harassed' or 'embarrased', you are being checked upon though. And I do note that even FHDM cites that his experience was generally through being in odd places at odd times OR undertaking activity that he is 100% aware will draw attention. Besides it isn't 1 in 7 or 8, its 1 in 5 of the people they searched, and not everyone is being searched - so your odds of being inconvenienced are pretty low. On the other hand I reckon you'd be the first to holler and wail if you were the victim of crime, so this is the price you pay.
(I base this on how upset you apparently get over interactions with strangers where the worst that happens is you have a chat and empty your pockets, I can only guess how upset you'd be if it also involved what was in your pockets being taken and you were assaulted to boot)
Whilst I would agree with him about the cycling issue (rock solid, we have those stupid laws here too) in these cases the search and 'hassling' came off the back of a reason to be having a conversation. They didn't just pull someone up and search them, there was a cause.
Protip: if you already know the triggers that draw attention from the Police, try not to be too surprised when you do those things and attention gets paid.
Now TWK I reckon you are right, there are probably too many laws that could be cut away, but too many to even know you are breaking one? really?
Should the guy have his stinger or not? By the current rules (as I understand them*), yes. Ludicrous as it is, the constraints of the Bill of Rights are being ignored if Stingers are banned without an Amendment. Without such an amendment the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper.
Personally I would be for an amendment that prohibits weapons of mass destruction (such as nuclear devices and such) for the public good. I am against gun restrictions on felons who have completed their sentence. (theyve already paid their debt to society, etc etc etc.) Also, personally, I am completely and utterly against warrantless searches and seizures. And before anyone asks, that includes DUI checkpoints or drug tests for welfare recipients. Freedom is a dangerous dangerous thing, but worth it.
*thejeff or someone correct me if I am wrong.
Free money is not a constitutional right, so there's nothing wrong at all in requiring welfare recipients to pass drug tests. They have the right to opt out by declining benefits.
Continue your argument.
I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24. This has been confirmed by independent research, if you're the type to mistrust government sources. So, you might be looking at a chicken/egg problem. Black males 16-24 are the group most likely to actually be up to suspicious behavior. The social norms amongst this group (clothing choices, loitering, etc) does nothing to discourage suspicion.
Racial profiling can easily be imagined. Tyler Perry recently came out and said he was profiled by Atlanta police, but his own telling of the story makes it clear that he had committed a violation (turning left from a right turn land across several lanes) and had acted strangely (by telling them, who didn't recognize him, that he had been followed before). He accused them of racism and rudeness...
Well the Bush tax cuts are a form of welfare also like a negative income tax for rich people both provide income and substitution effects in economic jargon so should we drug test those people making more than 250,000 a year and in highest tax bracket. Also some of commiting crime numbers could be selection bias because others could get away with it if the police aren't looking for them.
Shifty, that is not what I said. I wish I could cam up on this Site to show you the size of the facepalm I'm doing right now.
Odd places at odd times? If you look at what I said, you will see that I mentioned that public parks (hardly a strange place) are forgetting to post their hours or lock their gates after they close, which results in problems for everyone who walks through them. Activity that will draw attention? I'm sorry, I'll be sure to cast invisibility upon myself when leaving a store. The only experiences I mentioned that even come close to what you said are when I was in the train station (I was the only person there), and when a huge crime went down and the cops canvassed the neighborhood. Neither of these were behaviors where I was in an odd place at an odd time -the train station is a public place and I kind of live at my house. As for the cycling, we'll, that is such a unique situation that I would say yes, it falls into the category of suspicious behavior under certain circumstances, but it's more deserving of its own thread.
And yes, there are far too many laws that result in stop and frisk practices. The most popular in ny right now is the ban on walking around with open containers of liquid. Police can stop you, claiming you smell like alcohol, and search you. Many people are under the erroneous impression that this law doesn't apply to them because they are drinking soda or water but this isn't true - it's up to the officer's discretion.
Moro, you aren't being 'harassed' or 'embarrased', you are being checked upon though. And I do note that even FHDM cites that his experience was generally through being in odd places at odd times OR undertaking activity that he is 100% aware will draw attention. Besides it isn't 1 in 7 or 8, its 1 in 5 of the people they searched, and not everyone is being searched - so your odds of being inconvenienced are pretty low. On the other hand I reckon you'd be the first to holler and wail if you were the victim of crime, so this is...
Okay so how are the pedestrians supposed to stay hydrated? How is that supposed to make me safer with someone ending up dehydrated and agitated without fear of being frisked. Does this mean they can stop a preist for having an open container of holy water?
|
Its obviously a - harass non whites into leaving the city streets campaign.
My recommendation is that you run at the next mayoral campaign with a plan to sack all the cops and government employees who fail to conform to a policy of seeking the consent of the whole populace with regards to every act of Government, Law, Constitution.
After you are assassinated by those with too much power to loose we can all blog impotently about how you were the next Martin Luther King.
Some days I really appreciate you YD; just when people get to the point of thinking that I can be a bit prickly, thats when you come out of left field and REALLY show people what prickly means! :p
Its obviously a - harass non whites into leaving the city streets campaign.
My recommendation is that you run at the next mayoral campaign with a plan to sack all the cops and government employees who fail to conform to a policy of seeking the consent of the whole populace with regards to every act of Government, Law, Constitution.
After you are assassinated by those with too much power to loose we can all blog impotently about how you were the next Martin Luther King.
Darn my requirement that people that are allegedly upholding the law actually follow it.
|
|
Some days I really appreciate you YD; just when people get to the point of thinking that I can be a bit prickly, thats when you come out of left field and REALLY show people what prickly means! :p
Someone has to stand up for whats right - no matter how absolute and undesirable that version of right is.
Darn my requirement that people that are allegedly upholding the law actually follow it.
YD is simply suggesting that you should indeed assert your requirement and actually do something about it.
YD is simply suggesting that you should indeed assert your requirement and actually do something about it.Darn my requirement that people that are allegedly upholding the law actually follow it.
By doing what exacly? I don't have the money to run for office or hand out free camera's for people to show whats going on. I can't even hobble around the area hoping to refuse a stop and frisk to make an issue out of a la rosa parks.
Seems you DO appear to have the wherewithal to operate PC's and communications equipment and the hours in the day to post up on online forums about it, would I suggest then you have the time to take action as well and attend the odd peaceful demonstration/rally, and if your largesse and present capacity doesn't extend to having budget to run for office then may I suggest you lend your active support to someone who can and go assist THEIR campaign?
All of the above were more than I had at age 8 when I was writing letters to our Prime Minister arguing against the damming of rivers in a distant state that would have ruined the pristine and delicate habitats of that region.
Running for local office isn't a huge $'s spend either - funnily enough I'm looking to run in my next local Govt election; I've already had exposure to State and Federal, now I'm of an age I need to look at my own community.
Seems you DO appear to have the wherewithal to operate PC's and communications equipment and the hours in the day to post up on online forums about it, would I suggest then you have the time to take action as well and attend the odd peaceful demonstration/rally
Posting on a PC costs me nothing. Travel is both expensive and painful. Protesting in person doesn't seem to do much, look at wallstreet.
All of the above were more than I had at age 8 when I was writing letters to our Prime Minister arguing against the damming of rivers in a distant state that would have ruined the pristine and delicate habitats of that region.
And about as effective as posting here.
Running for local office isn't a huge $'s spend either - funnily enough I'm looking to run in my next local Govt election; I've already had exposure to State and Federal, now I'm of an age I need to look at my own community.
You have significantly more income than I do.
Posting on a PC in the right forum can do ok, its just easier to do it here.
The Franklin River was subsequently saved, and...
You don't know my income and I don't know yours, however the point of 'stand - or support someone who is' remains.
You don't know my income and I don't know yours
You're running for public office. I can't afford the fee to run for dog catcher. I think I made a reasonable conclusion.
however the point of 'stand - or support someone who is' remains.
Lets see, I would either need to run for state office (a multimillion dollar proposition in NY), or actually move there to run for local office (requiring more than i have for an apartment)
If I see something I can do for the problem I'll try it, but you're vastly overestimating my resources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most popular in ny right now is the ban on walking around with open containers of liquid.I...what...my mind.
New York, you used to be cool. What happened? :(
Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was in NYC one time--I don't remember when, pre-9/11--walking through Tribeca, when I saw Giuliani and his entourage walking down the street in my direction. As we got close, there was a homeless dude sitting on the sidewalk who yelled out "Hey, Mr. Mayor! Give me a dollar!" Giuliani looked at him and smiled but just kept walking. The bum then yelled out "I voted for Dinkins, a*+&$!@!"
Hee hee!
Seems you DO appear to have the wherewithal to operate PC's and communications equipment and the hours in the day to post up on online forums about it, would I suggest then you have the time to take action as well and attend the odd peaceful demonstration/rally, and if your largesse and present capacity doesn't extend to having budget to run for office then may I suggest you lend your active support to someone who can and go assist THEIR campaign?
All of the above were more than I had at age 8 when I was writing letters to our Prime Minister arguing against the damming of rivers in a distant state that would have ruined the pristine and delicate habitats of that region.
Running for local office isn't a huge $'s spend either - funnily enough I'm looking to run in my next local Govt election; I've already had exposure to State and Federal, now I'm of an age I need to look at my own community.
We've already had several rallies on this in NY. It's not that hard to hook up with one of the groups trying to fight this activity, it's just that more than a few of these groups are out for other things politically that BNW may or may not agree with.
most popular in ny right now is the ban on walking around with open containers of liquid.I...what...my mind.
New York, you used to be cool. What happened? :(
I have to stress this doesn't happen often. It's usually used when the cop is a jerk or you REALLY smell like alcohol. Which is almost everyone after a certain time of night...