Youseff wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:most republicans think broken windows and stop and frisk were effective, even jerz i think. the base will eat that shit up

I think it is effective in certain high crime environments attacking smaller problems and ultimately preventing bigger ones. Most places, thankfully more than 2-3 decades ago, are not high crime environments.

It's also none of the federal government's fucking business.

Silly jersey, thinking that policing methods have any effect on crime.

I know you were law enforcement, but this post made me sad. I don't think it's a topic to be glib or sarcastic about. you're talking about policies that specifically targeted young men in poor communities. follow them home, stalk them, harass them, and in some cases arrest them for carrying around the same amount of weed that is likely very comparable to the amount of weed every cargo short wearing Phillies fan on this board carried around at the same age. now these people are put into the system, where our justice system persecutes minorities much harsher than whites. then when you're in the system the repercussions can be severe. and it's motivation boils down to nothing more than a social experiment. an experiment that has the capacity to absolutely negatively affect and even ruin peoples lives, all because a bunch of people theorize it may have some net impact on other crimes. I think it's horrible and it sickens me to see people on this board celebrate ruining people's lives because of a tenuous at best connection to impacting other crime stats.

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:most republicans think broken windows and stop and frisk were effective, even jerz i think. the base will eat that #$!&@ up

I think it is effective in certain high crime environments attacking smaller problems and ultimately preventing bigger ones. Most places, thankfully more than 2-3 decades ago, are not high crime environments.

It's also none of the federal government's #$!&@ business.

Silly jersey, thinking that policing methods have any effect on crime.

I know you were law enforcement, but this post made me sad. I don't think it's a topic to be glib or sarcastic about. you're talking about policies that specifically targeted young men in poor communities. follow them home, stalk them, harass them, and in some cases arrest them for carrying around the same amount of weed that is likely very comparable to the amount of weed every cargo short wearing Phillies fan on this board carried around at the same age. now these people are put into the system, where our justice system persecutes minorities much harsher than whites. then when you're in the system the repercussions can be severe. and it's motivation boils down to nothing more than a social experiment. an experiment that has the capacity to absolutely negatively affect and even ruin peoples lives, all because a bunch of people theorize it may have some net impact on other crimes. I think it's horrible and it sickens me to see people on this board celebrate ruining people's lives because of a tenuous at best connection to impacting other crime stats.

Also coincided with significantly less instances of human beings killing other human beings. When we're talking about arrests versus deaths there are no right decisions.

I just think its real easy for a bunch of academics to say from the comfort of 10-20 years in the future that broken window didn't have it's place and time.

Definitely no longer needed in a place as relatively safe as NY now. And trump has no idea wtf he's talking about regardless and is using it to blow a whistle.

Youseff wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:most republicans think broken windows and stop and frisk were effective, even jerz i think. the base will eat that shit up

I think it is effective in certain high crime environments attacking smaller problems and ultimately preventing bigger ones. Most places, thankfully more than 2-3 decades ago, are not high crime environments.

It's also none of the federal government's fucking business.

Silly jersey, thinking that policing methods have any effect on crime.

I know you were law enforcement, but this post made me sad. I don't think it's a topic to be glib or sarcastic about. you're talking about policies that specifically targeted young men in poor communities. follow them home, stalk them, harass them, and in some cases arrest them for carrying around the same amount of weed that is likely very comparable to the amount of weed every cargo short wearing Phillies fan on this board carried around at the same age. now these people are put into the system, where our justice system persecutes minorities much harsher than whites. then when you're in the system the repercussions can be severe. and it's motivation boils down to nothing more than a social experiment. an experiment that has the capacity to absolutely negatively affect and even ruin peoples lives, all because a bunch of people theorize it may have some net impact on other crimes. I think it's horrible and it sickens me to see people on this board celebrate ruining people's lives because of a tenuous at best connection to impacting other crime stats.

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:most republicans think broken windows and stop and frisk were effective, even jerz i think. the base will eat that #$!&@ up

I think it is effective in certain high crime environments attacking smaller problems and ultimately preventing bigger ones. Most places, thankfully more than 2-3 decades ago, are not high crime environments.

It's also none of the federal government's #$!&@ business.

Silly jersey, thinking that policing methods have any effect on crime.

I know you were law enforcement, but this post made me sad. I don't think it's a topic to be glib or sarcastic about. you're talking about policies that specifically targeted young men in poor communities. follow them home, stalk them, harass them, and in some cases arrest them for carrying around the same amount of weed that is likely very comparable to the amount of weed every cargo short wearing Phillies fan on this board carried around at the same age. now these people are put into the system, where our justice system persecutes minorities much harsher than whites. then when you're in the system the repercussions can be severe. and it's motivation boils down to nothing more than a social experiment. an experiment that has the capacity to absolutely negatively affect and even ruin peoples lives, all because a bunch of people theorize it may have some net impact on other crimes. I think it's horrible and it sickens me to see people on this board celebrate ruining people's lives because of a tenuous at best connection to impacting other crime stats.

Also coincided with significantly less instances of human beings killing other human beings. When we're talking about arrests versus deaths there are no right decisions.

I just think its real easy for a bunch of academics to say from the comfort of 10-20 years in the future that broken window didn't have it's place and time.

Definitely no longer needed in a place as relatively safe as NY now. And trump has no idea wtf he's talking about regardless and is using it to blow a whistle.

Well, broken windows is not stop and frisk. And crime was going down several yrs prior to Guliani/Bratton.

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:most republicans think broken windows and stop and frisk were effective, even jerz i think. the base will eat that #$!&@ up

I think it is effective in certain high crime environments attacking smaller problems and ultimately preventing bigger ones. Most places, thankfully more than 2-3 decades ago, are not high crime environments.

It's also none of the federal government's #$!&@ business.

Silly jersey, thinking that policing methods have any effect on crime.

I know you were law enforcement, but this post made me sad. I don't think it's a topic to be glib or sarcastic about. you're talking about policies that specifically targeted young men in poor communities. follow them home, stalk them, harass them, and in some cases arrest them for carrying around the same amount of weed that is likely very comparable to the amount of weed every cargo short wearing Phillies fan on this board carried around at the same age. now these people are put into the system, where our justice system persecutes minorities much harsher than whites. then when you're in the system the repercussions can be severe. and it's motivation boils down to nothing more than a social experiment. an experiment that has the capacity to absolutely negatively affect and even ruin peoples lives, all because a bunch of people theorize it may have some net impact on other crimes. I think it's horrible and it sickens me to see people on this board celebrate ruining people's lives because of a tenuous at best connection to impacting other crime stats.

Also coincided with significantly less instances of human beings killing other human beings. When we're talking about arrests versus deaths there are no right decisions.

I just think its real easy for a bunch of academics to say from the comfort of 10-20 years in the future that broken window didn't have it's place and time.

Definitely no longer needed in a place as relatively safe as NY now. And trump has no idea wtf he's talking about regardless and is using it to blow a whistle.

Well, broken windows is not stop and frisk. And crime was going down several yrs prior to Guliani/Bratton.

TD's post mentioned broken window. Very smart people disagree about whether the crime rate would have continued to decline or stabilize.

swishnicholson wrote:

Youseff wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:most republicans think broken windows and stop and frisk were effective, even jerz i think. the base will eat that shit up

I think it is effective in certain high crime environments attacking smaller problems and ultimately preventing bigger ones. Most places, thankfully more than 2-3 decades ago, are not high crime environments.

It's also none of the federal government's fucking business.

Silly jersey, thinking that policing methods have any effect on crime.

I know you were law enforcement, but this post made me sad. I don't think it's a topic to be glib or sarcastic about. you're talking about policies that specifically targeted young men in poor communities. follow them home, stalk them, harass them, and in some cases arrest them for carrying around the same amount of weed that is likely very comparable to the amount of weed every cargo short wearing Phillies fan on this board carried around at the same age. now these people are put into the system, where our justice system persecutes minorities much harsher than whites. then when you're in the system the repercussions can be severe. and it's motivation boils down to nothing more than a social experiment. an experiment that has the capacity to absolutely negatively affect and even ruin peoples lives, all because a bunch of people theorize it may have some net impact on other crimes. I think it's horrible and it sickens me to see people on this board celebrate ruining people's lives because of a tenuous at best connection to impacting other crime stats.

Not me.Never in law enforcement. Maybe you're thinking of smitty? But you're right, it was glib and i had planned to expand on it. I spent the 80s and early nineties living in areas of cities, first Baltimore, then Jersey City, then New York, then Philadelphia, all of which were mixed racially and all of which were experiencing high rates of crime. I saw efforts, or in some places didn't see efforts, to attack this pervasive atmosphere. Some of these involved the application of computerized surveys to previously completely antiquated methods of tracking crime, some of these involved enforcement of violations of minor criminal offenses, some of these just involved good community policing. And while it may make you sick to read differing opinions on this board, it made me sick when efforts were successful in these communities and suddenly families were able to emerge out into the streets and no longer live life under siege. Happy yes, but sick that they had to survive under these conditions for so long. For me I was relieved as well, but I knew I could buy my way out of there at some point while most didn't have that option.

I'm willing to concede that this is a far more complicated issue than simply police procedures. I'm willing to concede that no one of these efforts can be granted full credit for a drop in crime, and that there are many other factors, though there is a lot of supporting evidence for a number of procedures. I'm absolutely not only willing to concede, but to speak out about the sickening way that in the name of fighting crime a number of procedures have been abused in ways that are absolutely driven by racism, class-ism and a disregard for the dignity of human life.

But in one way a glib answer is deserved in that I'm absolutely not willing to step back to the days,when people acted like there simply was no way to reduce crime in our most vulnerable areas, and the only way to fight it was to move away from it and "those people." Choose whatever method you want, though an anodyne phrase like "economic opportunity" may be great in the long term but doesn't help someone trying to make it through the day-today. I'm not going to give you an apology for thinking the police and how they are managed can and have to provide a major part of this solution.

Woody wrote:Yeah you started frisking and she was like, "STOP."

Woody wrote:Yeah you started frisking and she was like, "STOP."