Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Uncle Albert, Aug 12, 2013.
Who cares? It's grossly unconstitutional.
Bloomberg's a nut. I'm surprised he hasn't outlawed question marks.
Now if they just stop frisking people who want to ride on a plane.
UA once again supports breaking the constitution as long as it's black and brown people who have their constitutional rights ignored. Yet if someone dares to point this out who claims we're imagining things.
Are you drunk again?
It's horribly unconstitutional. I'm surprised they got away with it as long as they did.
Well, no, to be honest, I'm surprised that we're not all stopped and frisked.
There is NO individual right to a lower crime rate.
There IS an individual right to be free from unreasonable searches, however.
There are lots of things the state can do to lower the crime rate, but things that infringe on individual rights are off the table.
After all, we don't exist to enable the government to achieve social goals, no matter how desirable they me. The government exists to protect our rights. We are the ends, not the means.
It's on the list. Right now he's trying to ban electric cigarettes.
Indeed. Because people vaping instead of smoking prevents Big Nanny from taking swaths of cash while keeping people addicted to a delivery method that kills them.
Oh, and let's not forget pushing them to try Big Pharma solutions that don't fucking work, until they go back to the delivery method that kills them.
Vaping is an actual, effective solution for quitting; but because Bloomy hasn't figured out how to siphon his precious blood money off of that yet, he's content to keep people from using it.
Yeah, I read about that. That may be what made me decide he went from "moron" to "nut." E-cigs don't cause any harm at all. The whole point to them is that you can smoke one right next to someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke, and it not affect them. I consider them to be a rather brilliant solution, myself, for anyone who wants to quit smoking, or wants to smoke in public as if they were on a break. It just screams "reasonable," which is apparently why Bloomberg wants it gone. He's a nut.
Well, if each frisk is in fact against the law, I'm pretty sure the actual crime rate will go down, even if the previous statistics failed to include these infringements.
Maybe he's just a fascist.
Don't you think the crime rate's going up up up up UP!
To live in this town you must be tough tough tough tough tough tough tough!
The fact that it's New York and Nanny Bloomberg is just golden. If "Stop & Frisk" was an official policy in say, Texas, liberals would be demanding that Union troops be sent to liberate the Lone Star state.
I think the golden moment comes when "stop and frisk" is ruled unconstitutional and phased out, and those festering shithole neighborhoods are overrun with violence and theivery, as the complaining hood rats wanted from the beginning. They want a free hand to supplement their income by mugging people and dealing drugs.
Strange, my experience has been that conservatives are far more likely to go for this sort of thing. Liberals I know have been fairly up in arms about stop and frisk in New York.
When it comes to Texas, should we be less opposed?
Let me guess, something I said tripped a condition of your "race card" programming. An accusation which you will now fail utterly to substantiate.
Is there some way to quantify the herp/derp regarding NY versus the hoopla over Arizona's law asking for the papers of brown folk?
So that's a "No."
I did not say anything about race, and any insinuation to the contrary is just your chickenshit, paint-by-numbers trolling.
I read somewhere that 1% of blacks frisked yielded an illegal weapon and only 1.1% of Hispanics searched yeilded a weapon... Meanwhile, 1.4% of the few Whites frisked yeilded a weapon.
First of all, I'm not saying that NYC should frisk more whites, but the fact is that if you only look for crime among black people, then you'll only catch black criminals. Why don't they stop and frisk on Wall Street? I hear theres a ton of hookers and blow down there. Don't they deserve same constitutional protection as all those priveleged residents in Harlem? The low incidence of NYC cops actually stopping crime shows that this was a pretty much useless policy. Will crime go up because they had to stop doing this? Fuck no.
No skin off my ass. I hope we get to find out.
Again, roughly 1-1.4% of stop and frisk victims actually yielded an arrest-able offense. If crime does go up after this, it'll have nothing to do with ceasing this policy.
So "yields an arrestable offense" is the only deterrent value? Stormtroopers marching up and down the street shaking everyone down doesn't discourage activity in a way that doesn't result in arrests?
Sure, OK. I'd get ugly on someone who wanted to "stop and frisk" my ass anyway, so by all means, deny any possible correlation. It has no consequence for me.
so lemme get this straight...
A police state is okay with you because you'll just thumb your nose at it?
No, a police state is emphatically not OK with me. A "stop and frisk" is going to result in my arrest, because I will not willingly comply.
I just think it's a little naive to pretend that the crime rate won't go up when pressure from the police is removed. I further submit that combining "less stormtrooper aggression" with some of the most draconian, fascist gun laws in the country is a recipe for honest, law-abiding citizens to have a bad time.
But like I said, not my problem. You won't catch me making my home in such uncivilized hinterlands.
meh-more cops isn't the answer to anything except filling privatized prisons with big time criminals like ourselves.
Not by itself, no. Eliminating the flawed notion of "vice" crimes and the practice of locking people up for victimless offenses would be the first step.
But after that, I'm not hearing any bullshit about redistributing wealth to elevate some asshole's quality of life so he won't turn to crime. Nor will I entertain the most half-hearted mention in passing of structuring free society around the idea of making it safe for us to let violent thugs walk the street.
The solution to thieves and violent offenders is immediate and permanent incarceration. I will not happily offer tribute, in the form of money or surrender of freedoms, to "encourage" asshole thugs to behave themselves. If they won't make that choice on their own, regardless of how much paternalistic "encouragement" is or is not offered, then all I have for them is a one-way trip to a fucking cell.
Sounds to me like Alberta is another Zimmerman - a wanna-be cop daydreaming of dragging people to jail and other violent revenge fantasies. Will Alberta find his very own Trayvon? All the accumulated rage of a life spent as an inconsequential divorced cubicle dweller, needing an outlet. Alberta is John Anderson of the Matrix, only there is no Morpheus coming to offer him a red pill.
Where did I call you a racist? Seems you raised that interpretation of your words, not me.
Separate names with a comma.