|
Would "Stop and frisk" be considered violating civil rights?Our normal criminal laws should be sufficient.
Now, there are techniques and tactics (proactive, intelligence-led) that should be used against gangs to a greater extent than "regular" criminals.
But we already have all the relevant legal tools we need.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Searches without probable cause violate the 4th amendment. If applied disproportionally to minorities, as Stop and Frisk has been, it's even worse.
Disproportionate crime gets appropriate attention.
|
|
So give them everything, let them dope up free of charge and get rid of white police?No. People don't just want to work to survive, but they also want to feel like they're contributing to something. Gangs offer that opportunity, but so do real jobs. Paying people well for work is one of the best immunizations against gangs; not only do people want the money, but they also want to feel appreciated, and it turns out that paying people well for their work is one of the most effective ways to do that.
Free injection sites are not "letting people dope up for free". They don't offer illegal drugs. They offer addicts an environment that both prevents the worst secondary effects from addiction (chiefly communicable disease) and puts them in contact with people who can offer treatment for both addiction and mental illness. It both decreases addicts' alienation and reduces the demand for illegal drug sales.
As for police and race, while race is useful as an approximation, it isn't the whole of the problem. I used Chicago's police because Chicago's core is extremely segregated, so a white police officer is almost certainly not from a hispanic community. It's not the color of the skin so much as it is a lack of ties to the people being policed.
How do you propose we make great paying non educated jobs materialize in the warzones of poor urban areas?
It makes it acceptable. If you make it no big deal they will do it more.
Police tend to come from good middle class backgrounds, not poor criminal ones. They do not need to be "just like us" they need to do their jobs and we (of ALL backgrounds) need to be responsible citizens. Most poor hate cops because they are arresting "their people" instead of having an issue with their communities producing criminals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.
I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
|
|
Disproportionate crime gets appropriate attention.Would "Stop and frisk" be considered violating civil rights?Our normal criminal laws should be sufficient.
Now, there are techniques and tactics (proactive, intelligence-led) that should be used against gangs to a greater extent than "regular" criminals.
But we already have all the relevant legal tools we need.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Searches without probable cause violate the 4th amendment. If applied disproportionally to minorities, as Stop and Frisk has been, it's even worse.No comment on the 4th amendment issues?
And disproportionate attention finds more crimes, which just proves that the disproportionate attention was justified.
Example: Assume, for the sake of argument that in a given population both rich white men and poor brown men are equally likely to carry drugs, but that the police stop and frisk 10% of the rich white men and 50% of the poor brown men. The results soon show that 5x as many drug busts are of the poor brown men. Obviously that's where we should concentrate our attention.
Now assume reality when we know damn well where crime tends to be most prevalent......
|
|
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
Ever question why things become illegal? or why criminals families hate cops?
Would "Stop and frisk" be considered violating civil rights?Our normal criminal laws should be sufficient.
Now, there are techniques and tactics (proactive, intelligence-led) that should be used against gangs to a greater extent than "regular" criminals.
But we already have all the relevant legal tools we need.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Searches without probable cause violate the 4th amendment. If applied disproportionally to minorities, as Stop and Frisk has been, it's even worse.
I'd still support it! Hyper racial sensitivity in my opinion is disarming law enforcement.
Why wait until there's something to frisk for when we can work on preventing the person from joining the gang in the first place?
Don't treat a symptom when we can cure a disease.
Can't argue with you on that! I agree 100%! What do you do now though?
I feel it should also apply to any and all in law enforcement who get busted for underhanded dealings. Takes more than just 1 dirty cop to pull the things you hear about.
The Key West PD was declared a criminal enterprise under RICO way back in 1984 for running a protection racket for cocaine smugglers. There's no "mafiosi only" language in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ever question why things become illegal? or why criminals families hate cops?Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
We have pretty good records on why most drugs became illegal. Mostly corporate interests (cotton, booze, etc) and racial stuff (Mexican immigrants used weed as we use beer, by making it illegal it was much easier for cops to control immigrants. We addicted blacks to cocaine when we were using them as dock workers after slavery but before the end of segregation. The cocaine made them more energetic and better workers. By eventually making it illegal, it allowed the historically fairly racist police of the south to harass and control the black population due to them already being addicted to it.)
No one even bothered to hide these reasons, they're mostly public record.
Many southern police departments use higher calibre handguns, the reason for this? "Coke-crazed negros", it's still on the books written like that.
Humanity was having a fine time using drugs for thousands of years before that.
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.
I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
If you truly want to apply RICO to domestic terrorists, might as well start at the top with damn near every politician in DC, then after the federal level is cleared go to the state.
Maybe we should RICO the people who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Then the religious institutions that tacitly support them and generally operate as if their beliefs are more important than other people's rights. Then we can go after the polticians and public figures who encourage misogyny and other bigotry. That is how to take a chunk out of domestic terror.
Why don't we? Because taking people's rights away at a whim devalies the rights of everyone who we deign to let keep them.
Haha, didn't think you'd go through with it. Also, the article you linked was awful.
The answer to this question is no. The short answer is "No!" and the long answer is "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo." Effortpost time!
There are three major causes of gang violence, and all of them can be potentially mitigated in ways other than harsher enforcement. Indeed, they are often aggravated by harsh enforcement.
Poverty creates the environment where gangs can form at all. If someone has (or thinks) that their legal opportunities are slim, then illegal opportunities become more attractive. This isn't just a matter of needing food and shelter; people have an innate desire to feel needed and useful. Gangs offer this affirmation and what appears to be a lucrative opportunity. (It's almost never actually a lucrative opportunity, since criminal business doesn't even offer the limited protections that legal work offers in the US.)
The way to mitigate this cause is to increase the opportunities available to people who would be at-risk for gang opportunity. People won't join a gang to feel like a part of something or to have something to do if they have a job that does that for them. If you want to implement this solution in the real world (rather than some hypothetical one where gangs haven't formed yet), then you're going to need to offer opportunities to gang members and ex-convicts, too. While it's reasonable a single person wouldn't want to hire a gang member, let alone a convicted criminal, if the only opportunity after committing a crime is to commit more crimes, then you have a self-perpetuating problem.
A lucrative black market also spurs the creation of gangs. This doesn't have to be drugs, but in the US, it is. While the lure of a supposedly-lucrative illegal trade is obvious, that temptation isn't the only way it perpetuates gang activity. The blank market trade doesn't just fund gangs, but also makes them insular and aggressive. Not only is someone even peripherally associated with...
Haha! My main man! I'm always up for a chat. I love that article ; )
Well we don't have much to disagree on I see. I agree with the long term solutions. With some minor objections I have the same analysis. Now, how is what you wrote much different than that Stormfront article you cited? They both read like they are from the same periodical! Like I wrote in another post, hyper racial sensitivity can hinder police or the feds from really tackling the 'present' gang problem.
Peace.
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
If you truly want to apply RICO to domestic terrorists, might as well start at the top with damn near every politician in DC, then after the federal level is cleared go to the state.Maybe we should RICO the people who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Then the religious institutions that tacitly support them and generally operate as if their beliefs are more important than other people's rights. Then we can go after the polticians and public figures who encourage misogyny and other bigotry. That is how to take a chunk out of domestic terror.
Why don't we? Because taking people's rights away at a whim devalies the rights of everyone who we deign to let keep them.
Man what you said is awful,especially on religious institutions tacitly supporting murderers? I'm pro-life and I have never known anyone advocating violence. Prolife supporters try to discourage woman from having abortions & work within the law to outlaw abortion.
Come on man, stop knocking religion, do it in the countless other threads on the boards, but not here please.
|
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
If you truly want to apply RICO to domestic terrorists, might as well start at the top with damn near every politician in DC, then after the federal level is cleared go to the state.Maybe we should RICO the people who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Then the religious institutions that tacitly support them and generally operate as if their beliefs are more important than other people's rights. Then we can go after the polticians and public figures who encourage misogyny and other bigotry. That is how to take a chunk out of domestic terror.
Why don't we? Because taking people's rights away at a whim devalies the rights of everyone who we deign to let keep them.
Man what you said is awful,especially on religious institutions tacitly supporting murderers? I'm pro-life and I have never known anyone advocating violence. Prolife supporters try to discourage woman from having abortions & work within the law to outlaw abortion.
Come on man, stop knocking religion, do it in the countless other threads on the boards, but not here please.
Three words.
Army of God.
Anti-abortion Christian Group that advocates the use of force in their efforts to promote their agenda. They have been linked to several attacks, kidnapping and murders of those associated with abortion clinics, either from members committing the acts or voicing support for the acts after the fact.
Please note I am not stating you or anyone on the boards advocates their stance, nor am I stating that this is a mainstream Christian viewpoint (indeed it is quite the opposite). However, to claim that all members of the pro-life movement are on the same page is disingenuous, just as it is to claim that all members of any group hold exactly the same beliefs or viewpoints.
But tying back into the actual discussion, I would still be interested in hearing your reply to my earlier questions.
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
If you truly want to apply RICO to domestic terrorists, might as well start at the top with damn near every politician in DC, then after the federal level is cleared go to the state.Maybe we should RICO the people who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Then the religious institutions that tacitly support them and generally operate as if their beliefs are more important than other people's rights. Then we can go after the polticians and public figures who encourage misogyny and other bigotry. That is how to take a chunk out of domestic terror.
Why don't we? Because taking people's rights away at a whim devalies the rights of everyone who we deign to let keep them.
Man what you said is awful,especially on religious institutions tacitly supporting murderers? I'm pro-life and I have never known anyone advocating violence. Prolife supporters try to discourage woman from having abortions & work within the law to outlaw abortion.
Come on man, stop knocking religion, do it in the countless other threads on the boards, but not here please.
Just read the first two paragraphs.
If you're going to suggest that we ignore the rights of some criminals, you have to be willing to explain why the same shouldn't be done to those who share your faith.
Well we don't have much to disagree on I see. I agree with the long term solutions. With some minor objections I have the same analysis. Now, how is what you wrote much different than that Stormfront article you cited? They both read like they are from the same periodical! Like I wrote in another post, hyper racial sensitivity can hinder police or the feds from really tackling the 'present' gang problem.Stormfront article? What are you babbling about?
Hyper racial sensitivity isn't hindering police. Like I said, stop and frisk is counterproductive in addition to being racist and unconstitutional. The problem is the loss of a trusting relationship between the police and the poor, and while race is part of that, it's not all of it by a longshot. If all of the blacks and hispanics everywhere in the US moved to the moon tomorrow, it would be some other tribal separator between the poor minorities and everyone else. (Italian and Irish organized crime dried up as opportunities improved, their black markets faded, and they didn't have an underclass alienated from the police to recruit from.) The problem is alienation, and race is just a shorthand for that in this context.
You didn't post a storm front article about how mexicans gravitate towards gangs? Must have been someone else, thought it was you, sorry about that. AAAAnyway
Yes hyper sensitivity is a hinderance in my opinion. Its not racist, its just good police work. I support the 4th ammendment but sometimes Cops have to use common sense. Did Jay & Silent Bob just hang out infront of the Quicky mart minding their own business?About fostering trust in the police, the Cops get it on both ends. People complain they are too tough, then they complain they don't care about the community b/c they took too long in responding to a call.
I know its a civil rights nightmare but how do you get illegal drugs and guns off the street today & tomorrow? I've talk to bangers that work the law by using Minors. Diabolical.
The scenario about blacks & hispanics moving to the moon is a topic I won't touch here for fear of lock down!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well we don't have much to disagree on I see. I agree with the long term solutions. With some minor objections I have the same analysis. Now, how is what you wrote much different than that Stormfront article you cited? They both read like they are from the same periodical! Like I wrote in another post, hyper racial sensitivity can hinder police or the feds from really tackling the 'present' gang problem.Stormfront article? What are you babbling about?
Hyper racial sensitivity isn't hindering police. Like I said, stop and frisk is counterproductive in addition to being racist and unconstitutional. The problem is the loss of a trusting relationship between the police and the poor, and while race is part of that, it's not all of it by a longshot. If all of the blacks and hispanics everywhere in the US moved to the moon tomorrow, it would be some other tribal separator between the poor minorities and everyone else. (Italian and Irish organized crime dried up as opportunities improved, their black markets faded, and they didn't have an underclass alienated from the police to recruit from.) The problem is alienation, and race is just a shorthand for that in this context.
I was really trying to stay out of this thread as yet again some of it comes across as "those silly minorities, waaaaaay to sensitive for their own good. We know what's good for them and it's treating them ALL as if they were criminals and proceeding accordingly!"
I just wanted to thank you for getting the points across in a rational and non-offensive manner and as someone who lived in Guilanni's NYC in the late 80's and 90's I can attest to the constant harrassment by the NYPD.
I also want to point out that this level of harassment would never happen to little white boys and girls because the parents of these children would be so deep in the ass of the Police departments and their bosses that they'd be crapping shoe leather for a year. But since that's not the case? Open season I guess...
I hate gangs. HATE THEM. But there has to be a balance between treating EVERYONE who lives in a gang infested area as a criminal and catching the ACTUAL criminals. I know nerds talk a good game and tend to try and be pragmatic when it comes to things that dont directly affect them? But the map is not the territory. Common Sense decrees that if you turn the populace that you're supposed to be helping to protect against you it makes it that much harder to do your job.
When the police have had beat cops canvassing a neighborhood on a regular basis and the community gets to KNOW and TRUST that cop or cops, it doesn't matter what color he/she is that rapport makes a huge difference in that neighborhood in terms of crime and reducing it. You treat that community like a occupied territory? and the people there aint gonna tell you a DAMN thing. Stop and frisk seems to make sense on the surface, but the amount of people you piss off as opposed to the amount of people that they actually catch with violent contraband doesn't measure up. And because you stopped me because I fit a broad description (male black, 5' 9' - 6', REALLY?) and treated me like I just robbed a bank when I'm trying to get home from a closing shift at Tower Records and study for a chem final tomorrow? (True Story happend over 20 years ago, but not alot has changed) I'm supposed to cut you some slack because I obviously look like a criminal? Riiiiiiiight.
My son is 10 going on 11. He's a great kid. Just go his scores back from the citywide 4th grade tests. The ELA portion (Reading) he scored a 3 out of 4 (he missed getting a 4 by one question) Math? 4 out of 4, Science 4 out of 4. He loves building things out of LEGO.
He likes guns. I've had to explain to him that he's never to take one of his toy gun outside whether it looks real or not. He asked me why and I told him: If a cop sees you with a gun HE WILL KILL YOU. He will take one look at your skin color and he will make certain assumptions about who you are and based on those assumptions he will gun you down in the street like an animal.
He was a little shocked and scared when I told him that, but it's a reality that little brown boys in this country need to know. I cant afford to BS him and have a dead or shot child. He knows not to be disrespectful to the police, not because they deserve his respect but because THEY WILL KILL HIM and not feel the least bit bad about it as he could easily be perceived as a threat to them. I've explained to him that this is not something that his white friends will ever have to deal with. But there are different rules for him. He's young but he gets it and I'd rather have him be afraid and cautious than ignorant and DEAD.
That's the reality that HE and I have to deal with in this OUR country in terms of the police.
The bill of rights clearly applies only to those who think, look, and act like me.
Duh.
Also...I hate poor people.
Don't agree with you on everything, but I don't have kids yet. Otherwise, qft. We both be have been and will be harassed by the cops for crimes committed in our general vicinity based solely on our physical description starting and stopping with th color of our skin. Some people will never see that as a problem, but that's a topic for another thread, I suppose.
Well we don't have much to disagree on I see. I agree with the long term solutions. With some minor objections I have the same analysis. Now, how is what you wrote much different than that Stormfront article you cited? They both read like they are from the same periodical! Like I wrote in another post, hyper racial sensitivity can hinder police or the feds from really tackling the 'present' gang problem.Stormfront article? What are you babbling about?
Hyper racial sensitivity isn't hindering police. Like I said, stop and frisk is counterproductive in addition to being racist and unconstitutional. The problem is the loss of a trusting relationship between the police and the poor, and while race is part of that, it's not all of it by a longshot. If all of the blacks and hispanics everywhere in the US moved to the moon tomorrow, it would be some other tribal separator between the poor minorities and everyone else. (Italian and Irish organized crime dried up as opportunities improved, their black markets faded, and they didn't have an underclass alienated from the police to recruit from.) The problem is alienation, and race is just a shorthand for that in this context.
I was really trying to stay out of this thread as yet again some of it comes across as "those silly minorities, waaaaaay to sensitive for their own good. We know what's good for them and it's treating them ALL as if they were criminals and proceeding accordingly!"
I just wanted to thank you for getting the points across in a rational and non-offensive manner and as someone who lived in Guilanni's NYC in the late 80's and 90's I can attest to the constant harrassment by the NYPD.
I also want to point out that this level of harassment would never happen to little white boys and girls because the parents of these children would be so deep in the ass of the Police departments and their bosses that they'd be crapping shoe leather for a year. But since that's not the case?...
Well we don't have much to disagree on I see. I agree with the long term solutions. With some minor objections I have the same analysis. Now, how is what you wrote much different than that Stormfront article you cited? They both read like they are from the same periodical! Like I wrote in another post, hyper racial sensitivity can hinder police or the feds from really tackling the 'present' gang problem.Stormfront article? What are you babbling about?
Hyper racial sensitivity isn't hindering police. Like I said, stop and frisk is counterproductive in addition to being racist and unconstitutional. The problem is the loss of a trusting relationship between the police and the poor, and while race is part of that, it's not all of it by a longshot. If all of the blacks and hispanics everywhere in the US moved to the moon tomorrow, it would be some other tribal separator between the poor minorities and everyone else. (Italian and Irish organized crime dried up as opportunities improved, their black markets faded, and they didn't have an underclass alienated from the police to recruit from.) The problem is alienation, and race is just a shorthand for that in this context.
I was really trying to stay out of this thread as yet again some of it comes across as "those silly minorities, waaaaaay to sensitive for their own good. We know what's good for them and it's treating them ALL as if they were criminals and proceeding accordingly!"
I just wanted to thank you for getting the points across in a rational and non-offensive manner and as someone who lived in Guilanni's NYC in the late 80's and 90's I can attest to the constant harrassment by the NYPD.
I also want to point out that this level of harassment would never happen to little white boys and girls because the parents of these children would be so deep in the ass of the Police departments and their bosses that they'd be crapping shoe leather for a year. But since that's not the case?...
Since we are talking about gangs on the west and south side of Chicago I'm 100 % sure those areas are overwhelmingly majority black & hispanic. Little white boys and girls and their families would not be in those neighborhoods for their parents to be deep in the ass of the Police dept and their bosses.
It would not be racist for me to assert that a serial killer or a mass murderer is most likely white. Data shows this to be true.
It would not be racist for me to say that there are huge gaps between blacks and whites when it comes to murder, rape, and violent crime in general. Until that changes blacks in gang infested or high crime areas are unfortunately forced to deal with that scrutiny from law enforcement.
Until those violent crime stats tighten little white boys in no gang and low crime areas will never get a second glance from the Cops.
Majority of Cops deserve my respect, they are the thin line between Lawful society and chaos. Not because they are packing.
Nice story though, I miss going to a record/tape store.
You didn't post a storm front article about how mexicans gravitate towards gangs? Must have been someone else, thought it was you, sorry about that. AAAAnywayOh, this?
On the other hand, children of Mexican immigrants have generally been unsuccessful. Disconnected from their native lands, immersed in a degenerate gangster culture prevalent in ghettos and barrios, with a sense of entitlement derived from being born in the United States, young Hispanics are massively dropping out of high school. Lack of ambition, work ethic and education prevents them from economically advancing in this complex society. They often have difficulty achieving the same level of success as their illiterate parents, and in many cases become career criminals.Yeah, I did. That forum post describes the tendency of poor immigrants (with an extra helping of racism to say it has more to do with race than, you know, being poor and alienated) to gravitate to crime, an ascribes it to a moral failing. It has nothing to do with morality; instead, people want to feel like they do something important and useful, and a number of factors push people into gangs instead of more-productive outlets. It doesn't have anything to do with race except that racism leads to alienation, and this alienation leads to more alienation and perpetuates racism.
Gangs don't happen because poor people are bad people who prefer crime to better opportunities. Gangs happen because they seem like the best choice or only choice to get by and be a part of something.
Yes hyper sensitivity is a hinderance in my opinion. Its not racist, its just good police work.No, it's not. In fact, the idea that discriminating against minorities is somehow "good police work" is part of the wedge between the poor and the police.
I support the 4th ammendment but sometimes Cops have to use common sense. Did Jay & Silent Bob just hang out infront of the Quicky mart minding their own business?Jay...
Yes I did, I liked it a lot. I know Jay & Silent Bob are fiction, I used them as an analogy.
The problem here is that you assume poor black kids in high crime areas do nothing but join gangs while rich rich white kids in low crime areas never, ever do. This is quite the opposite from my experience. You're trying to money ball an un money ball able situation, and unless you are willing to put up with regular harrassment from the cops on suspicion that you are a possible serial killer/mass murderer on on an irritatingly frequent basis while simply walking down the street, you aren't going to understand where others whose backgrounds don't match yours are coming from.
...Well we don't have much to disagree on I see. I agree with the long term solutions. With some minor objections I have the same analysis. Now, how is what you wrote much different than that Stormfront article you cited? They both read like they are from the same periodical! Like I wrote in another post, hyper racial sensitivity can hinder police or the feds from really tackling the 'present' gang problem.Stormfront article? What are you babbling about?
Hyper racial sensitivity isn't hindering police. Like I said, stop and frisk is counterproductive in addition to being racist and unconstitutional. The problem is the loss of a trusting relationship between the police and the poor, and while race is part of that, it's not all of it by a longshot. If all of the blacks and hispanics everywhere in the US moved to the moon tomorrow, it would be some other tribal separator between the poor minorities and everyone else. (Italian and Irish organized crime dried up as opportunities improved, their black markets faded, and they didn't have an underclass alienated from the police to recruit from.) The problem is alienation, and race is just a shorthand for that in this context.
I was really trying to stay out of this thread as yet again some of it comes across as "those silly minorities, waaaaaay to sensitive for their own good. We know what's good for them and it's treating them ALL as if they were criminals and proceeding accordingly!"
I just wanted to thank you for getting the points across in a rational and non-offensive manner and as someone who lived in Guilanni's NYC in the late 80's and 90's I can attest to the constant harrassment by the NYPD.
I also want to point out that this level of harassment would never happen to little white boys and girls because the parents of these children would be so deep in the ass of the Police departments and their bosses that they'd be crapping shoe leather for a year. But since
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
If you truly want to apply RICO to domestic terrorists, might as well start at the top with damn near every politician in DC, then after the federal level is cleared go to the state.Maybe we should RICO the people who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Then the religious institutions that tacitly support them and generally operate as if their beliefs are more important than other people's rights. Then we can go after the polticians and public figures who encourage misogyny and other bigotry. That is how to take a chunk out of domestic terror.
Why don't we? Because taking people's rights away at a whim devalies the rights of everyone who we deign to let keep them.
Man what you said is awful,especially on religious institutions tacitly supporting murderers? I'm pro-life and I have never known anyone advocating violence. Prolife supporters try to discourage woman from having abortions & work within the law to outlaw abortion.
Come on man, stop knocking religion, do it in the countless other threads on the boards, but not here please.Three words.
Army of God.
Anti-abortion Christian Group that advocates the use of force in their efforts to...
Hey! Ok, I got the point but its a little apples to oranges I think. I'll give it a second look but on the surface it looks a little flakey. On topic, I want to answer the question you had. What was it again? Thanks!
It would not be racist for me to assert that a serial killer or a mass murderer is most likely white. Data shows this to be true.
It would not be racist for me to say that there are huge gaps between blacks and whites when it comes to murder, rape, and violent crime in general. Until that changes blacks in gang infested or high crime areas are unfortunately forced to deal with that scrutiny from law enforcement.What is racist is when you translate "minorities are more likely to be criminals" into "minorities are likely to be criminals, thus it is okay to harass them because they are minorities." The vast majority of minorities, even poor ones in crime-ridden neighborhoods, are law-abiding. Harassing them decreases their willingness to report crime and increases the alienation that leads to people joining gangs in the first place. People are "deal[ing] with that scrutiny from law enforcement": they're seeking out an alternative that offers protection and acceptance.
The fact that these neighborhoods are crime-ridden is more reason to be sensitive, because people are already going to resent the police for dealing with neighbors and family members who are actually criminals. You can't send the message that everyone who is poor, or black, or hispanic, or who lives in this neighborhood is an enemy, because then people will either feel that the police can't be bothered to tell criminals from the law-abiding to protect them, or will consider the police no better than the gangs and just not report crime.
People resent the police then they complain about the high crime and how the police wont do enough. Its a catch 22! Throw race into it and it becomes a cluster f*ck.
I'm good with the long term strategy. Whats the short term tactic?
The AB has reportedly toyed with terrorist plots of its own. In 2000, a longtime Brotherhood member and explosives expert-turned-government informant told federal investigators he had been approached by AB leaders inside Colorado's Supermax federal prison who asked him to provide them with technical information on making bombs in preparation for a series of attacks on federal buildings and officials across the country.
"It's become irrational," he said, according to an FBI report. "They're talking about making car bombs, trucks bombs, mail bombs."
People resent the police then they complain about the high crime and how the police wont do enough. Its a catch 22! Throw race into it and it becomes a cluster f*ck.
I'm good with the long term strategy. Whats the short term tactic?
It's not a catch-22, it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Both police and civilians act reasonably based on the rift between them, but those actions which are reasonable on an individual level only make the social problem worse. The way you fix it is to break the cycle.
The short-term solutions are to kill programs that increase the alienation of the poor (stop-and-frisk!), institute visible programs that criminalize police abuses and more closely associate the police with the communities they police, and decriminalize the hell out of petty vice crimes.
Decriminalizing petty vice crimes in my opinion leads to further erosion of personal responsibity.
I hear what your saying man. In the end, the final analysis the communities that are having all the trouble have to look in the mirror and take responsibility and create a better future.
|
|
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?Those are excellent questions. Restricting myself to the US:
The last time someone bombed an abortion clinic was April 1, 2012.
The last time someone murdered an abortion doctor was May 31, 2009.
How frequent is this stuff? Wikipedia has what is probably an incomplete list. The short answer is that it's a hell of a lot more frequent than terrorists driving planes into buildings.
And yes, RICO was designed to fight gangsters. Its anti-terror use is the novelty, not its anti-gang use.
Speaking as someone who lives in Wichita, and works near where Dr. Tiller's clinic was. This was an act of terror. There was no other cause for shooting this man in a Church. It was not the act of a person who deserves to be called a Christian, regardless of how he self identifies. No one who feels that abortions are an act of murder would choose to perpetrate the same act they despise.
I won't comment on gangs, I have not read the article and since I shall sleep soon tonight I am most likely not going to.
Decriminalizing petty vice crimes in my opinion leads to further erosion of personal responsibity.This logic would imply that driving over the speed limit, double parking, and littering are more likely to lead to moral decay and a criminal life. You're not going to get drug addicts to quit being addicted by being more responsible, nor are you going to get them clean by arresting them or using them as a justification to harass the communities they live in. You get them clean by giving them places to use that aren't in public and are staffed with medical professionals, to keep drug use away from non-users, to make sure they have easy access to help getting healthy, and to make sure they don't catch or spread secondary diseases.
No man not at all. Comparing carrying and using weed has nothing to do with you're examples.
You already have addicts that suck up community resources on rehab, safe places to get a fix and all that. Why would I want a possible public health issue in my community by allowing open access to hard drugs by decriminalizing them? Get the addicts help, yes I'm for that.
Anyway, I think where you are driving at is the possession of small amounts of weed or coke that get people busted right? Decriminalize that and you don't get so many blacks incarcerated for petty crimes?
Decriminalization gets the cops off their backs? No more harrassing the community, less blacks in jail?
Also, you said something about instituting visible programs that criminalize police abuses? Whats that all about?
Thought out, empirically supported god ideas.I'm 100% with you on legalization of various drugs being the first step here. As someone pointed out above, the repeal of prohibition dealt a significant blow to organized crime of the era. Legalizing some drugs and generally treating addiction as a medical problem and not a crime worse than murder is a good start.
I also agree that fixing the behavior and perception of the police is important. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards this goal as well.
Unfortunatly we have people like Andrew R responding with anecdote and visceral feeling instead of actual thought. Being a country of people like that is how we got to this point and we need to turn that around.
If you truly want to apply RICO to domestic terrorists, might as well start at the top with damn near every politician in DC, then after the federal level is cleared go to the state.Maybe we should RICO the people who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Then the religious institutions that tacitly support them and generally operate as if their beliefs are more important than other people's rights. Then we can go after the polticians and public figures who encourage misogyny and other bigotry. That is how to take a chunk out of domestic terror.
Why don't we? Because taking people's rights away at a whim devalies the rights of everyone who we deign to let keep them.
Man what you said is awful,especially on religious institutions tacitly supporting murderers? I'm pro-life and I have never known anyone advocating violence. Prolife supporters try to discourage woman from having abortions & work within the law to outlaw abortion.
Come on man, stop knocking religion, do it in the countless other threads on the boards, but not here please.
Please don't misconstrue what I said as knocking religion because it is not. I am calling out the hypocracy of a minority which does exist and does both tacitly and explicitly endorse acts of terror to further the pro-life adgenda.
I know that there are many who honestly believe that abortion is wrong and work piecefully towards their ends. Good for them for standing up for their convictons, even if I completely disagree with their beliefs.
Just keep in mind that there is another side, and your "discoraging women from having an abortion" from my point of view is infringing on people's human rights for the sake of your personal, and not universal belief.
Please, please, please stop seeing denigration of al religion whenever someone mentions extreme religious groups. Religion on the balance is still a positive thing and I believe is too important to be used by a few cowardly bigots to ideologically hide behind. I respect religion in general too much to let extremism slide.
In today's Musical Interlude, tUnE-yArDs ask the tuneful question What's a boy to do if he'll never be a gangsta?
With the way we've gone kinda bonkers with the anti-terrorism legislation, I say no to treating gangs as domestic terrorists.
I'm ok with RICO, I guess.
There has to be better ways to make gang activity unattractive to those that would participate in it than "throwing the book" at the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, the question has the whole precedence of the RICO actand the war on terror in reverse. The RICO act was around before the Patriot Act, Enemy Combatant Status, etc.
If you're asking if the RICO act should be used to criminally charge Chicago gang leaders who haven't done anything beyond order crimes while sitting at the center of a criminal network, then absolutely, that's what it's there for.
If you're asking if Chicago gangs should be treated as terrorists, I don't know what that means. It's a great soundbyte, but are we talking about martial law in Chicago, suspension of Habeas Corpus, or what, exactly? In any case, it bares consideration that the US court system has been used to prosecute every person called a domestic terrorist thus far, and has not been found wanting.
Basically, I'm saying that if we're really going to do this (bad idea IMO), we need a specific legal definition of both "gang banger" and "domestic terrorist." It seems to me that both are phrases that people toss around when they're speaking emotionally rather than intellectually.
We should reclassify men who beat their wives as domestic terrorists.
That, I'm ok with.
RICO
I don't know if this has been pointed out, but RICO actually has been used against anti-abortionists.
I'm still against it (RICO), though.
Anyway, by this point, even Citizen Aretas hasn't proposed any anti-terrorism measures to be used against Chicago's "gangbangers" that weren't already anti-gangster measures, so I'm guessing the answer to the question posed by the thread is "No."
Unless I missed something.
I agree with the goblin...
I know its a civil rights nightmare but how do you get illegal drugs and guns off the street today & tomorrow? I've talk to bangers that work the law by using Minors. Diabolical.
The scenario about blacks & hispanics moving to the moon is a topic I won't touch here for fear of lock down!
Above bolded; my emphasis.
Looks like a baiting comment. I'll take it.
When I read a remark like I have here, it pauses me to point out the white elephant in the room and wonder if you were able to broach the topic elsewhere without fear of lock down ...
do you had a position to support it to get illegal drugs and guns off the street today and tomorrow out of a belief that the removal of a race (or races) outweighs the civil rights nightmare because the safety & welfare of the defined majority outweighs offending the defined minority?
P.S. - the term 'race' is a social construct and not a biological one, you are aware of this, correct?
Anyway, by this point, even Citizen Aretas hasn't proposed any anti-terrorism measures to be used against Chicago's "gangbangers" that weren't already anti-gangster measures, so I'm guessing the answer to the question posed by the thread is "No."
Unless I missed something.
Oh, I think Citizen Aretas has a proposition, but NASA nor the private sector has caught up with science to put it in action yet.
It's only a hunch, though. I have no concrete evidence to the contrary.