Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
dckingsfan wrote:One thing I will say is that Trump is actually trying to come up with a policy - I might not like it but it is a policy - just don't let them in.
TGW wrote:Wrong...the most crime ridden area (garment and mid-town districts in manhattan) in NYC are majority white areas according to NYC crime map for 2014 and 2015:
http://maps.nyc.gov/crime/
yet, those 2 areas (precinct 14 and 18) only have a handful of stop and frisk stops per month. Precinct 18, despite being a very high crime area, only had 62 stop and frisks from Jan 1 to March 31 despite being a high crime area. Precinct 106 (predominantly black and latino), for example, had 443 stops in that same time frame, despite being a low-risk crime area. So to make the conclusion that stop and frisk is done in black and latino areas because it's a high crime area is completely fallacious. The most dangerous parts of New York are predominantly white areas, yet S&F is practiced sparingly in those areas....that suggests to me overt racism.
Stop being an uncle tom.
Induveca wrote:TGW, you know zero about NYC. Midtown has always been plagued by robberies, specifically in the garment district. Racks of clothes disappear frequently, as do purses.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
nate33 wrote:TGW wrote:Wrong...the most crime ridden area (garment and mid-town districts in manhattan) in NYC are majority white areas according to NYC crime map for 2014 and 2015:
http://maps.nyc.gov/crime/
yet, those 2 areas (precinct 14 and 18) only have a handful of stop and frisk stops per month. Precinct 18, despite being a very high crime area, only had 62 stop and frisks from Jan 1 to March 31 despite being a high crime area. Precinct 106 (predominantly black and latino), for example, had 443 stops in that same time frame, despite being a low-risk crime area. So to make the conclusion that stop and frisk is done in black and latino areas because it's a high crime area is completely fallacious. The most dangerous parts of New York are predominantly white areas, yet S&F is practiced sparingly in those areas....that suggests to me overt racism.
Stop being an uncle tom.
It appears that those midtown districts have a high rate of robbery, but the violent crime rate is fairly low. There are 0 murders and a lower felony assault rate than in several districts in upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Given that the area incorporates Broadway, my guess is that the victims of those robberies are often tourists. Perhaps they made a political decision that stop and frisk in a high tourist area would look bad and ultimately impact the economic well-being of the city.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
nate33 wrote:As usual. Nobody can refute my position logically, so they descend into insults or mockery. My questions remain:
What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?
Why can't these questions be asked?
TheSecretWeapon wrote:Research into stop & frisk says it didn't reduce crime. NYC's crime data indicates there's been no crime wave since the end of stop & frisk. Year-to-date, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, larceny, etc.) is basically the same as it was last year (down 2.5%), down 6% from 2013, and about the same (down 1.1%) from 5 years ago. Violent crimes are down 76% from 22 years ago (the timeframe published by the NYPD).
During that same time frame, rates have plummeted for violent crimes and property crimes. Not just in NYC. And not because of stop & frisk, because it wasn't being used in all the other places where crime rates fell.
The stop & frisk policy was racist in its application (if not design), and unconstitutional.
TGW wrote:Induveca wrote:TGW, you know zero about NYC. Midtown has always been plagued by robberies, specifically in the garment district. Racks of clothes disappear frequently, as do purses.
So your point is what exactly? You just said that S&F is used in predominantly high-crime areas, and I refuted your bogus claim by showing you proof that more S&F stops are made in lower-crime districts that are majority latino/black than higher-crime white areas.
If you have a problem with the data, take it up with the NYPD. They clearly aren't doing their job in midtown.
*edit* I've lived in NYC for 2 years. My sister lives in Harlem and I have family in Elmhurt and Jamaica, and my current girlfriend is from Brooklyn. I know a little bit about NYC.
Zonkerbl wrote:nate33 wrote:As usual. Nobody can refute my position logically, so they descend into insults or mockery. My questions remain:
What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?
Why can't these questions be asked?
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. Anyone who addresses your questions directly is getting sucked into the logicless vortex of your fantasy world.
Instead of lashing out at people who point out the flaws in your arguments why don't you LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE for once Nate?
TheSecretWeapon wrote:Research into stop & frisk says it didn't reduce crime. NYC's crime data indicates there's been no crime wave since the end of stop & frisk. Year-to-date, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, larceny, etc.) is basically the same as it was last year (down 2.5%), down 6% from 2013, and about the same (down 1.1%) from 5 years ago. Violent crimes are down 76% from 22 years ago (the timeframe published by the NYPD).
During that same time frame, rates have plummeted for violent crimes and property crimes. Not just in NYC. And not because of stop & frisk, because it wasn't being used in all the other places where crime rates fell.
The stop & frisk policy was racist in its application (if not design), and unconstitutional.
nate33 wrote:TGW wrote:Induveca wrote:TGW, you know zero about NYC. Midtown has always been plagued by robberies, specifically in the garment district. Racks of clothes disappear frequently, as do purses.
So your point is what exactly? You just said that S&F is used in predominantly high-crime areas, and I refuted your bogus claim by showing you proof that more S&F stops are made in lower-crime districts that are majority latino/black than higher-crime white areas.
If you have a problem with the data, take it up with the NYPD. They clearly aren't doing their job in midtown.
*edit* I've lived in NYC for 2 years. My sister lives in Harlem and I have family in Elmhurt and Jamaica, and my current girlfriend is from Brooklyn. I know a little bit about NYC.
TGW, I don't claim to know New York. I lived in White Plains 15 years ago and did some work in the city, but that's about it. You may well be right that the decision to do stop and frisk in black communities has a racial component. I don't know. But it may simply be that the majority of criminals in the Garment District are thieves, not armed killers. Stop and frisk wouldn't catch a gun on them because they're not armed.
Again, I'm not arguing with you. I don't know enough about the issue. I'm just throwing it out there as a possible alternative.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
DCZards wrote:I don't think anyone is missing your point, dckingsfan. You said "the stop and frisk policy was very effective in NY at reducing gun related crimes in NY."
There's no evidence that stop and frisk was effective.
dckingsfan wrote:DCZards wrote:I don't think anyone is missing your point, dckingsfan. You said "the stop and frisk policy was very effective in NY at reducing gun related crimes in NY."
There's no evidence that stop and frisk was effective.
Wow, no. Guess I don't know how to write.
That was most exactly not my point.
My point is that Trump's "policy" on terrorism has followers because there isn't an alternative policy. When crime hit new highs there weren't other policy alternatives - hence the war on crime.
So, what is the alternate policy on the war on terrorism? Haven't seen another better policy. And voids get filled.
nate33 wrote:TheSecretWeapon wrote:Research into stop & frisk says it didn't reduce crime. NYC's crime data indicates there's been no crime wave since the end of stop & frisk. Year-to-date, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, larceny, etc.) is basically the same as it was last year (down 2.5%), down 6% from 2013, and about the same (down 1.1%) from 5 years ago. Violent crimes are down 76% from 22 years ago (the timeframe published by the NYPD).
During that same time frame, rates have plummeted for violent crimes and property crimes. Not just in NYC. And not because of stop & frisk, because it wasn't being used in all the other places where crime rates fell.
The stop & frisk policy was racist in its application (if not design), and unconstitutional.
I don't know enough about the results of stop & frisk to argue either way. I do know that the broken windows policy of policing has proven to be very, very effective. From the time it was implemented, New York had a much greater reduction in crime relative to every other major city in the country. The only other city that was even close to New York's crime reduction was Fort Worth, Texas, which had also imposed a broken windows policing strategy.
TheSecretWeapon wrote:dckingsfan wrote:DCZards wrote:I don't think anyone is missing your point, dckingsfan. You said "the stop and frisk policy was very effective in NY at reducing gun related crimes in NY."
There's no evidence that stop and frisk was effective.
Wow, no. Guess I don't know how to write.
That was most exactly not my point.
My point is that Trump's "policy" on terrorism has followers because there isn't an alternative policy. When crime hit new highs there weren't other policy alternatives - hence the war on crime.
So, what is the alternate policy on the war on terrorism? Haven't seen another better policy. And voids get filled.
But, there are other policies to combat terrorism. Obama articulated one in his Oval Office speech when he talked about ISIS being contained. That's a debatable assertion, but: strong intel work to defuse, disarm and prevent as many attacks as possible, isolate/contain ISIS, and investigate and prosecute those who perpetrate attacks IS a policy. We've been doing that in one form or another for decades.
Another possibility would be to form an international coalition and invade ISIS territory with the goals of a) focusing the fight in one area as much as possible, and b) destroying the caliphate.
Still another possibility would be to go it alone and invade ISIS territory with the same goals as above.
Fighting terrorists (the "War on Terrorism" construction is **** -- you can't fight a war against a tactic) doesn't require creating a discriminatory policy that's not going to be effective (pretty easy for terrorist to pretend to be something other than Muslim). Trump's call for a ban on Muslim immigration (temporary or otherwise) is a) explicitly racist, b) bound to be ineffective at preventing future attacks, and c) does more to support the terrorist recruiting pitch that the Western World wants to destroy Islam than probably anything America has done since invading Iraq.
I guess in that sense, Trump's proposal is very much like stop & frisk: racist, bound to be ineffective, and certain to build even more animosity and distrust.
