Chicago: 12 hours, 1 neighborhood, 7 murders

[GMDino]

(04-01-2017, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've seen numbers closer to 85%, but we'll go with your 90% and my reply is "Good". That means that 10-15% were not "completely innocent". If the practice is not deemed unconstitutional (I see folks here trying hard to push for that; however, that is not the case) then why does it matter is 99% of the people that are stopped are completely innocent. if it gets 1%.

Wow.

I'd think someone who defends the second amendment wouldn't think that giving up their freedom to stay safe would be good at all.

You learn something new every day.

[xxlt]

(04-01-2017, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wow.

I'd think someone who defends the second amendment wouldn't think that giving up their freedom to stay safe would be good at all.

You learn something new every day.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Get with the times man!

[GMDino]

(04-01-2017, 01:37 PM)xxlt Wrote: Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Get with the times man!

I guess.

I can't get past the disconnect though.  No need for regulations on guns...but it's fine to give up your right to walk down the street without being stopped and searched so we can catch a few "criminals".

To that end I wonder what the 105 caught were guilty of?  Guns? Drugs? Old traffic tickets?

How "safe" does it make me if the police stop a guy with one ounce more of marijuana on him than is allowed by law in his state?

[xxlt]

(04-01-2017, 01:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess.

I can't get past the disconnect though.  No need for regulations on guns...but it's fine to give up your right to walk down the street without being stopped and searched so we can catch a few "criminals".

To that end I wonder what the 105 caught were guilty of?  Guns? Drugs? Old traffic tickets?

How "safe" does it make me if the police stop a guy with one ounce more of marijuana on him than is allowed by law in his state?

Oh, it makes you safer! Don't even act like you don't know that!

But let's keep it real.

Don Trump.

Great President?

Or Greatest President?

[GMDino]

(04-01-2017, 01:45 PM)xxlt Wrote: Oh, it makes you safer! Don't even act like you don't know that!

But let's keep it real.

Don Trump.

Great President?

Or Greatest President?

Don't know yet.  We have to "give him a chance".  ™

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2017, 01:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess.

I can't get past the disconnect though.  No need for regulations on guns...but it's fine to give up your right to walk down the street without being stopped and searched so we can catch a few "criminals".

To that end I wonder what the 105 caught were guilty of?  Guns? Drugs? Old traffic tickets?

How "safe" does it make me if the police stop a guy with one ounce more of marijuana on him than is allowed by law in his state?

Perhaps the disconnect is that you're just kinda making up things.

I have never said there is no need for regulations on guns and to suggest otherwise is just ludicrous. I am pretty far left when it comes to gun control

I have never said anyone must give up their right to walk down the street without being search. I have said I have no problem with them being stopped if there is reasonable suspicion and upon the interview it is determined there is reason to search then it should be allowed

What do you know or care about safe? You most likely don't live in a community where gun violence is rampant. You have the luxury of telling the innocent folks in those communities that stopping and perhaps frisking folks suspected of being associated with gun crime doesn't make them safer; without having a clue. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2017, 01:45 PM)xxlt Wrote: Oh, it makes you safer! Don't even act like you don't know that!

But let's keep it real.

Don Trump.

Great President?

Or Greatest President?

You really should do something about that obsession. 

[GMDino]

(04-01-2017, 02:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps the disconnect is that you're just kinda making up things.

I have never said there is no need for regulations on guns and to suggest otherwise is just ludicrous. I am pretty far left when it comes to gun control

I have never said anyone must give up their right to walk down the street without being search. I have said I have no problem with them being stopped if there is reasonable suspicion and upon the interview it is determined there is reason to search then it should be allowed

What do you know or care about safe? You most likely don't live in a community where gun violence is rampant. You have the luxury of telling the innocent folks in those communities that stopping and perhaps frisking folks suspected of being associated with gun crime doesn't make them safer; without having a clue. 

(04-01-2017, 02:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really should do something about that obsession. 

[xxlt]

(04-01-2017, 01:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Don't know yet.  We have to "give him a chance".  ™

I noted the ranking I saw recently where his first 100 days were ranked as worse even than William Henry Harrison's, who of course died after one month. But Don has always been about the comeback after bankruptcy. After he bankrupts America we may be in for great things, so you are right, let's give this business mogul a chance!

[Belsnickel]

Okay, I'm seeing percentages being thrown around about the stop-and-frisk thing. Let's get it straight, it wasn't that the courts found 85-90% of the stops were in the wrong, what has been found is that 85-90% of the stops resulted in no charges being filed, and even fewer convictions of any crime. This speaks to the effectiveness of the program, not the constitutionality. Those are two different topics to discuss. The court said this when ruling against NYPD's implementation of the program, and it is absolutely true. So let's not conflate effectiveness and constitutionality, please.

Now, the courts don't look at effectiveness, but policy analysts do. Considering the 10-15% charge rate (I forget what the conviction rate was) and the lack of any correlation between the implementation of the program and a drop in violent crime, a surface level analysis would tell me that the policy is ineffective. If it is ineffective and subject to abuses that could result in constitutionally questionable application, I'd consider the policy to be more of a liability than a benefit.

[Dill]

(03-31-2017, 07:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: These Chicago politicians like to keep harping about gun violence, but are they instituting any "stop and frisk" policies, like the one that was quite effective in New York?

I am coming a bit late to this, but I do have a question.

Sunset, your graphs show a precipitous drop in crime between 1990 and 2000, before stop and frisk was instituted (or at least before it was intensified under Bloomberg). That drop occurred nationwide. The graphs then show relative stability in the crime rate during the period when the highest number were stopped and frisked.

Do you have any evidence that stop and frisk does anything other than make conservatives feel safer and harass people who look like felons (i.e., blacks)?

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2017, 05:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, I'm seeing percentages being thrown around about the stop-and-frisk thing. Let's get it straight, it wasn't that the courts found 85-90% of the stops were in the wrong, what has been found is that 85-90% of the stops resulted in no charges being filed, and even fewer convictions of any crime. This speaks to the effectiveness of the program, not the constitutionality. Those are two different topics to discuss. The court said this when ruling against NYPD's implementation of the program, and it is absolutely true. So let's not conflate effectiveness and constitutionality, please.

This is exactly what I said when addressing these percentages earlier

Quote:Now, the courts don't look at effectiveness, but policy analysts do. Considering the 10-15% charge rate (I forget what the conviction rate was) and the lack of any correlation between the implementation of the program and a drop in violent crime, a surface level analysis would tell me that the policy is ineffective. If it is ineffective and subject to abuses that could result in constitutionally questionable application, I'd consider the policy to be more of a liability than a benefit.

You're smart enough to know that the effectiveness can be manipulated to support the view of those posting them.

For example how many people would be surprised to find that a study by the ACLU found the practice to be ineffective?

Conversely look what Heather MacDonald has to say about the exact same data:

Quote:2. Stop-and-frisk is one of the reason's for New York City's sharp decline in crime. 

According to Heather Mac Donald, murders declined almost 80 percent and major felonies by almost 75 percent from the early 1990's to 2013 thanks to "proactive policing," which includes the practice of stop-and-frisk.

In 2011, "stops yielded nearly 800 guns and over 5,000 other weapons, mostly knives," according to Mac Donald. Critics of the practice argue that this isn't enough to justify its use, and they also claim there aren't enough arrests from the practice to justify it. However, Mac Donald points out that "the possibility of getting stopped has clearly deterred many gangbangers from packing heat — which is precisely the point" as well as deterred other crimes from being committed.
3. Stop-and-frisk is not racist. This is the common refrain from stop-and-frisk critics, and Mac Donald proves how ludicrous it is using 2011 data:

Quote:Blacks are 53 percent of stop subjects, though they are 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites are 9 percent of stop subjects, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population. Therefore, conclude Stringer and others, the NYPD targets individuals for stops based on their race rather than on crime patterns and suspicious behavior.
Here is what the anti-cop critics never divulge: Blacks are 66 percent of all violent-crime suspects, according to the victims of and witnesses to those crimes. Blacks commit around 70 percent of all robberies and about 80 percent of all shootings in the city. Add Hispanic shooters, and you account for 98 percent of all shootings in the city.
Whites, by contrast, were only 5 percent of all violent crime suspects in 2011. According to victim and witness reports, they commit barely over 1 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.
Such disparities mean that the police can’t deploy their resources where people most need protection from violence — in minority neighborhoods — without producing racially disproportionate stops.

 What percentage of success rate do we place on whether it is effective? 10/20/30/40.......

As I've said: If no one's rights are violated and (conceding the ineffective point) the procedure results in only a handful of ciminals being arrested for their crimes.  What isthere to complain about?

[Dill]

(04-01-2017, 05:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, the courts don't look at effectiveness, but policy analysts do. Considering the 10-15% charge rate (I forget what the conviction rate was) and the lack of any correlation between the implementation of the program and a drop in violent crime, a surface level analysis would tell me that the policy is ineffective. If it is ineffective and subject to abuses that could result in constitutionally questionable application, I'd consider the policy to be more of a liability than a benefit.

You are assuming the policy was designed primarily or only to reduce crime.

Can anyone suss out any correlation between implementation of the policy and positive voter response?

Until those numbers are in, I would not say the policy was either "ineffective" or a liability from Bloomberg's standpoint, or from the standpoint of others who might run for office on a law and order platform.
 

[Belsnickel]

(04-01-2017, 06:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is exactly what I said when addressing these percentages earlier

I know, I just wanted to reiterate that point for some people. Sometimes a point like that does well coming from both sides of the spectrum.

(04-01-2017, 06:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're smart enough to know that the effectiveness can be manipulated to support the view of those posting them.

For example how many people would be surprised to find that a study by the ACLU found the practice to be ineffective?

Conversely look what Heather MacDonald has to say about the exact same data:

What percentage of success rate do we place on whether it is effective? 10/20/30/40.......

As I've said: If no one's rights are violated and (conceding the ineffective point) the procedure results in only a handful of ciminals being arrested for their crimes.  What isthere to complain about?

Effectiveness can of course be manipulated, that's what policy analysis is all about. Tying outcomes to inputs is a difficult thing and one that can be very subjective. This difficulty in tying in outcomes to policies is why you can have the conflicting analyses. Being that stop-and-frisk was only one part of the proactive policing strategies in NYC it would be hard to actually ascertain the effectiveness of that one component. My perception was based on the graphs Sunset provided only showing a brief period of stop-and-frisk with a longer trend of a decrease in violence. This would be why I specified my statement as surface level.

All of that being said, you state that no one's rights are being violated, but how do you know that for certain? The moving and subjective goalpost of reasonable suspicion is difficult, and many people who would be in that situation and had their rights violated would not come forward. I'd wager there were quite a few instances of rights being violated. One just needs to determine whether the outcomes outweigh the liability for the policy.

[Dill]

(04-01-2017, 06:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're smart enough to know that the effectiveness can be manipulated to support the view of those posting them.
For example how many people would be surprised to find that a study by the ACLU found the practice to be ineffective?
Conversely look what Heather MacDonald has to say about the exact same data:

 According to Heather Mac Donald, murders declined almost 80 percent and major felonies by almost 75 percent from the early 1990's to 2013 thanks to "proactive policing," which includes the practice of stop-and-frisk.

In 2011, "stops yielded nearly 800 guns and over 5,000 other weapons, mostly knives," according to Mac Donald. Critics of the practice argue that this isn't enough to justify its use, and they also claim there aren't enough arrests from the practice to justify it. However, Mac Donald points out that "the possibility of getting stopped has clearly deterred many gangbangers from packing heat — which is precisely the point" as well as deterred other crimes from being committed.

Looks like Ms. Heather has folded her narrative about a New York city policy she favors into a nationwide stat--a decline in crime occurring everywhere after 1990, regardless of stop and frisk. Perhaps she believes New York City's stop and frisk policy somehow dropped crime in Michigan, California and Florida too.  

If "gangbangers" have been deterred from packing heat, and so deterred from other crimes, then this deterrence should show up as a statistically meaningful drop in the crime rate. Has it?  Can we believe that crimes are being deterred when there is no effective change in the crime rate?

Just because some people may manipulate stats to support desired policy goals doesn't suddenly make all stat-based arguments and those who use them equally credible. It just means we have to evaluate anyone and everyone's use of stats. Otherwise, all anyone has to do is present "alternative facts" to equalize policy arguments.

[Rotobeast]

(04-01-2017, 02:12 AM)xxlt Wrote: "This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift..."

Quote:

Quote:Dill

Sunset, your graphs show a precipitous drop in crime between 1990 and 2000, before stop and frisk was instituted (or at least before it was intensified under Bloomberg). That drop occurred nationwide.

Nintendo and the advent of the internet is what I believe the reduction in violent crime to be caused by.

(04-01-2017, 11:55 AM)xxlt Wrote: I am surprised to see you line up with pansy nation and say guns are dangerous though. I am also surprised to see you say they don't magically go off. Someone posted a video of one in this very thread that magically went off, and I heard a firearms sales rep once talking about the Glock pistols that had become so popular with police departments about 15-20 years ago and how they kept magically going off. I think they were using the phrase, "Accidental discharge," but there were stories about it happening all over the U.S. in police locker rooms, cruisers, homes, and on the street. It sure seemed magical when I heard all these accounts of guns "just going off" and doing so "for no reason." Again, maybe someone who is expert can shed some light here on how guns are dangerous but don't just magically go off. I am eager to learn more, especially since our nation's various gun debates don't seem to be subsiding and I like to be an informed debate watcher.

There is no such thing as "Accidental Discharge".
All are preventable.
They are "Negligent Discharges".
Even the barrel cooking the round would be negligent, as they knew it was a possibility and should have unloaded the weapon and fired the final round downrange. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2017, 11:55 AM)xxlt Wrote: Sorry for exaggerating the gravity of your anecdote.

No you're not, smarmy.

Quote:I guess if there was no danger to your friend it is unclear why this "not flagging someone" is such a big deal. I mean, not doing it being so important suggests there is some inherent danger there, and clearly there wasn't per your response above. Not being a firearms expert I may never understand this, but I am trying to. I feel ignorant, and while it is a familiar feeling, it is one I have tried my whole life to overcome with information when I felt it. Maybe someone else can explain away my ignorance. I would be grateful.

You are ignorant, your feeling is justified.  One of the cardinal rules of firearms safety is to never point the muzzle of your gun at something you don't intend to shoot.  If the gun had been just verified by me as unloaded and my friend got flagged I'd have had the same reaction.  I should have had him stand well clear and he should have followed the instructions he was given earlier in the day, one of which is never be downrange of someone holding a firearm.

Quote:I am surprised to see you line up with pansy nation and say guns are dangerous though.

Of course guns are dangerous, no one would seriously argue against this.  Cars are also dangerous, your garbage disposal is dangerous and your shower is dangerous.  Appropriate caution and forethought will mitigate most of the danger.  In fact, firearms, properly handled, are much safer than cars.

Quote:I am also surprised to see you say they don't magically go off. Someone posted a video of one in this very thread that magically went off, and I heard a firearms sales rep once talking about the Glock pistols that had become so popular with police departments about 15-20 years ago and how they kept magically going off.

The vid you refer to, the instructor discharged the weapon and attempted to cover his embarrassing fail as a mechanical failure.  He had his finger on the trigger, which you are not supposed to do until the gun is pointed at what you are going to shoot.  I can see why you stated you're ignorant, because the statement you just made is the height of gun related ignorance.  As for Glock, the sales rep is 100% full of shit.  I'm just guessing they didn't work for Glock hmm?  No reason at all they would be slagging the Glock product at all then is there?

Quote:I think they were using the phrase, "Accidental discharge," but there were stories about it happening all over the U.S. in police locker rooms, cruisers, homes, and on the street.

Glock's are striker fired pistols.  They have to have a round in the chamber and be ready to fire to function.  They also have no traditional manual safety, unless you count your finger, which anyone who handles firearms seriously does.  Negligent, not accidental, discharges are caused by poor trigger discipline.  Glocks have several different mechanical safeties, they have an excellent drop safety and one of the safeties is built into the trigger itself, meaning the gun cannot discharge unless that safety is depressed by, say, a finger.

Quote:It sure seemed magical when I heard all these accounts of guns "just going off" and doing so "for no reason."

Again, not for "no reason" my ignorant friend, operator error.  If Glocks had such a defect they would have been recalled.  IIRC Glock has never issued a recall.  Remington, OTOH, had to recall some of their 700 series rifle for this type of mechanical failure. 

Quote:Again, maybe someone who is expert can shed some light here on how guns are dangerous but don't just magically go off. I am eager to learn more, especially since our nation's various gun debates don't seem to be subsiding and I like to be an informed debate watcher.

Hopefully this post will shed a little light on the utter depths of your complete lack of firearms knowledge.  I hope you will avail yourself of this wonderful tool for gathering information, it's called the internets, and continue your education.  Maybe if you study hard enough you'll come close to knowing what you're talking about in regards to this subject.  My thanks for your time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2017, 08:41 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: There is no such thing as "Accidental Discharge".
All are preventable.
They are "Negligent Discharges".
Even the barrel cooking the round would be negligent, as they knew it was a possibility and should have unloaded the weapon and fired the final round downrange. 

Hah, I made my post below before I read yours.  Here, xxlt, is a man who knows what he is talking about.  As for "cook offs", you have to fire an large amount of rounds in short order for you to be able to cook a round off.  No one, outside of a YouTube video or combat, is going to subject their firearm to such stress as you significantly lower the service life of your firearm by doing so.  If you're at some inane event like the "Great shoot off" or whatever the fug it's called or if you're at a live fire drill in the military you may fire enough rounds to have this be a danger.  Even in these scenarios, a person who knows what they are doing will immediately cycle the action once they are done firing and clear the chamber.  Not doing so would be negligent.  Unless you are firing a belt fed firearm doing so is both simple and instantaneous.

Thank you, Roto, for being an island of sanity in a river of far left gun ignorance diarrhea.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2017, 11:55 AM)xxlt Wrote: Sorry for exaggerating the gravity of your anecdote.

(04-02-2017, 04:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No you're not, smarmy.

You are ignorant, your feeling is justified.  

How could you have thought the anecdote was grave at all when he said...

(04-01-2017, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  the fact that I had gotten so fixated on safely removing the round that I had stopped paying attention to where my friend was standing gave me chills.  

As to the danger of guns...everyone I know who owns one knows you never point it at anything unless you intend to fire it. Been around many people practicing and cleaning their guns and it's rule number one.

Still, accidents happen. You can never let your guard down when you have a weapon in your hand. Even if you are trained and a professional.

And none of that means they should be taken away.

[Dill]

(04-01-2017, 08:41 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Nintendo and the advent of the internet is what I believe the reduction in violent crime to be caused by.

The guys who wrote Freakonomics suggest it was Roe vs Wade.