Is Today the Beginning of the End of America’s ‘Tough on Crime’ Policies

New York Magazine ^ | 8/12/13

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The Supreme Court ruled, back in the early 70s, that they have ZERO duty/obligation to protect you anyway. Their guns are to protect their OWN lives while enforcing whatever arbitrary Diktats of Der Staat happen to be in vogue at the moment.”

This creates a problem for Bloomy whose justification for gun bans is that it allows him to keep crime low in NYC.

Recall it was mayor Rudy Giuliani who proactively cleaned up NYC which was a cesspool till he took over ~1994.
His methods drove the Sharpton’s nuts. Giuliani took over from Dinkins, Dinkins took over from Koch in 1989 and ran the already dirty City into the ground. Koch became Mayor in 1978.

Rich white lib Bloomy was controlling crime by doing these stop and go searches in high crime areas leading to this resentment by black libs. Bllomy's argument is they keep the criminals honest..

[GenXteacher]

The best way to reduce crime would be to expand the definitions where citizens can use lethal force- for example, most of these stoners steal to support their drug use. If we were allowed to shoot and kill thieves, there would be both fewer thieves, and fewer stoners. Then the crime rate drops further, as the chance of the deceased becoming recidivists is 0%. Granted, it would not happen- too many state-paid defense attorneys would lose their income stream, and they are too well connected to their legislator buddies who used to be lawyers.

[Uncle Miltie]

“New York: Muggings Return With A Vengeance”

I predict that headline in 2 Years.

While Stop and Frisk is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, it has also clearly made the streets safe to walk.

Which introduces the age-old problem: How much Freedom are you willing to give up to achieve Security?

Not an easy question to answer, especially if you’ve been mugged.

OBTW - None of the foregoing has anything to do with race. If Stop and Frisk were somehow constitutional, stopping those who fit the profile of crooks may disproportionately (to population) fall on blacks, who commit crime disproportionately (to population). Tough.

Stop and Frisk has repeatedly been shown to be disproportionately affecting WHITES compared to their rate of either victimization or conviction. That just means that whites commit so much less crime that cops Stopping and Frisking them at most any rate is much higher than their proportion of criminal encounters.

[NFHale]

“...This creates a problem for Bloomy whose justification for gun bans is that it allows him to keep crime low in NYC...”

If people were educated to just how UN-protected they are, Bloomie would be ejected unceremoniously onto his ass.

But hey... sheeple are sheeple. Stupid ass Dems want to live in a place where they can be murdered at will by thugs, well... go on right ahead.

At the end of the day, it’s still a choice. Carry, or don’t.

[DannyTN]

"You do realize crime has dropped dramatically in the last 25 years?"

Yes, I think that's largely due to security cameras. It's just so much harder to get away with a crime today. Thus repeat offences drop because criminals get locked away.

I was thinking this would be a program for places like Detroit. I'm of the opinion that crime spreads if you don't stop it. People from Detroit move to other cities to escape thuggery, but some take their thuggery with them.

The downsides of such a program are many and include...

• As in every government bureacracy, the bureacracy will push to expand to more than 4 cities.
• They'll push to stay in cities longer.
• If cities stopped recording crime to increase funding during the Clinton years, will they report any crime at all, if lower reported crime gets the feds out of their business?
• They'll put criminals in charge.
• Criminals will eventually learn how to evade the surveilance.

[nickcarraway]

Actually, they have decent evidence it’s lead. Childhoos lead exposure.