Author Topic: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?  (Read 11728 times)

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #100 on: March 10, 2020, 10:40:57 AM »
What about Bloomberg do you consider radical or extreme?
Support for stop and frisk for starters.  Most of what little I know about his economic policies would be considered at least right of centre, if not hard right, here in Australia as well.

He doesn't support stop and frisk.  That was a program that he drastically reduced.  I like that he's flexible, listened to the community, and made changes.  I prefer right leaning economic policies, left leaning social policies.  So for me, Bloomberg is a pretty solid candidate.  But it won't matter, he's not going to win.


"I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It's exactly the reverse of what they say" - Bloomberg in June 2013 at the end of his time as mayor

Stop and frisk numbers exploded under Bloomberg's time as mayor (rising about 600% from his election to their peak when he was in office).  New York recorded about 100k stop and frisks the year Bloomberg was elected, and about 680k at Bloomberg's peak in 2011.  Eventually, the mayor listened to public outcry and multiple lawsuits and by the time he left office stop and frisk numbers were just under 200k.

To say that Bloomberg drastically reduced stop and frisk is not true.  To say that he was publicly against stop and frisk at any time during his mayoralty (or at any time before deciding to run for president) is not true.  To say that Bloomberg listened to the community is maybe partially true, although how much of that was listening and how much of that was damage control is unclear.

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.  He did drastically reduce stop and frisk in 2013, his last year.  I like that Mike listened to the community, but I've also kind of liked that he wasn't afraid to just do what needed to be done, regardless of political consequences.  His comments about stop and frisk were not wrong, from a factual standpoint.  They were socially wrong.   I personally see people complaining about gun violence and the destruction it's doing in minority neighborhoods, then complaining when a mayor recognizes it and sends the police out to try and save lives.  "You just can't win" comes to mind.

Your support of policies that permit a largely white police force to legally harass people of colour for the crime of being black/latino aside . . . what you initially posted still stands as factually incorrect.  It is not 'drastically reduced' when the stop and frisk instances at the end of Bloomberg's time as mayor amounted to roughly doubling the number of times that police performed state sanctioned targeted harassment of people based on racial background.

If Americans gave a shit about gun violence, or preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals it wouldn't be possible to buy a gun without a background check and easily searchable registries would track all guns to owners to enforce this law.  But they don't . . . so please try to avoid bringing up a completely solvable problem that nobody cares to solve as justification for institutionalized racism.

This is a thread about Bloomberg.  Are you ACTUALLY going to suggest that Mike didn't want to solve gun issues?  He was realistic about it.  He can't just pass gun laws and registries.  So he tried instituting other things that he COULD do to solve the issue.  After trying a different approach, he winded it down because it obviously wasn't getting the results he hoped for, and was viewed as racist.  So he winded down the program.  I think he did the right thing.  You can disagree if you want, that's fine.

You know why we won't have easily searchable registries?  Because (rightfully), nobody trusts the government to not use that registry for confiscation.  When you have candidates who constantly talk about confiscation, and the end goal being full blown gun confiscation, nobody is going to support a registry.  A gun registry would not be a path I would support.  Though, I don't think we have much of a gun problem in this country, I think it's a fake issue - and you'll disagree, thinking I'm an idiot, I know.  That's fine.  I think the real issue is cultural, social, and economic.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #101 on: March 10, 2020, 10:47:16 AM »

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.  He did drastically reduce stop and frisk in 2013, his last year.  I like that Mike listened to the community, but I've also kind of liked that he wasn't afraid to just do what needed to be done, regardless of political consequences.  His comments about stop and frisk were not wrong, from a factual standpoint.  They were socially wrong.   I personally see people complaining about gun violence and the destruction it's doing in minority neighborhoods, then complaining when a mayor recognizes it and sends the police out to try and save lives.  "You just can't win" comes to mind.  There is a reason cities like Baltimore are seeing a drastic increase in gun crime after media/social outrage against cops trying to stop it.  What police officer is going to ruin his life to save people that don't want to be saved?


I used to support a lot of policies that I thought worked, so I can't fault you for supporting it.  I will simply ask if you would still support it if you were the target.  Or your kids.  on a regular basis.  In front of your boss or your neighbors.  For no reason other than what you looked like.    Please, really try to put yourself in someone else's shoes when you answer.

Is that really what happened?  They would show up at peoples jobs and frisk them?  Anyways, just because I support stop and frisk, doesn't mean I support an unregulated, unrestrained version of it.

You said "based on what you looked like" - I like that you didn't bring race in to that.  Because "what you look like" to me, means gangbanger.  Let's be real here, the police KNOW where the dangerous neighborhoods are. They know where the fish are likely to bite.  And they know which people are likely to be carrying a weapon or up to no good, often based on how they are dressed and present themselves.

These are officers that are on the streets day in and day out in these communities, they are well in tune with what is going on.  I've been on a ride along in a dangerous community.  Being out there drastically changes your views on policing.  It was an eye opener.  And if stop and frisk is a tool that allows the officers to check for weapons on an individual they know is likely to be carrying, I support it.  I don't support some sort of unrestrained, frisk grandmas in parking lots because she's black version.  I think there is a reasonable middle ground.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #102 on: March 10, 2020, 10:50:30 AM »
What about Bloomberg do you consider radical or extreme?
Support for stop and frisk for starters.  Most of what little I know about his economic policies would be considered at least right of centre, if not hard right, here in Australia as well.

He doesn't support stop and frisk.  That was a program that he drastically reduced.  I like that he's flexible, listened to the community, and made changes.  I prefer right leaning economic policies, left leaning social policies.  So for me, Bloomberg is a pretty solid candidate.  But it won't matter, he's not going to win.


"I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It's exactly the reverse of what they say" - Bloomberg in June 2013 at the end of his time as mayor

Stop and frisk numbers exploded under Bloomberg's time as mayor (rising about 600% from his election to their peak when he was in office).  New York recorded about 100k stop and frisks the year Bloomberg was elected, and about 680k at Bloomberg's peak in 2011.  Eventually, the mayor listened to public outcry and multiple lawsuits and by the time he left office stop and frisk numbers were just under 200k.

To say that Bloomberg drastically reduced stop and frisk is not true.  To say that he was publicly against stop and frisk at any time during his mayoralty (or at any time before deciding to run for president) is not true.  To say that Bloomberg listened to the community is maybe partially true, although how much of that was listening and how much of that was damage control is unclear.

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.  He did drastically reduce stop and frisk in 2013, his last year.  I like that Mike listened to the community, but I've also kind of liked that he wasn't afraid to just do what needed to be done, regardless of political consequences.  His comments about stop and frisk were not wrong, from a factual standpoint.  They were socially wrong.   I personally see people complaining about gun violence and the destruction it's doing in minority neighborhoods, then complaining when a mayor recognizes it and sends the police out to try and save lives.  "You just can't win" comes to mind.  There is a reason cities like Baltimore are seeing a drastic increase in gun crime after media/social outrage against cops trying to stop it.  What police officer is going to ruin his life to save people that don't want to be saved?

I don't want to take the thread off on a tangent but I do want to comment on stop and frisk. I think I can understand where you're coming from and a lot of people feel the same way. On paper, stop and frisk doesn't sound like a bad policy - focus on where the crime is, right?

But in practice what this amounts to is certain people getting stopped again and again. Can you imagine being a low abiding citizen, particularly a kid or young adult in your formative years, being stopped on a regular basis and interrogated like you're a criminal?

If it happens once, you shake it off, but this kind of treatment wears on a person. The long term result was that the communities being disproportionately targeted felt like the police were the enemy and I can't blame them. Those being stopped felt scared even when they had done nothing wrong and again, with the inappropriate use of force we see in the news, I can't blame them. Sometimes this resulted in people saying no or running away and all of a sudden they were a criminal for resisting arrest or disobeying a police officer. The police were creating criminals and damaging their relationship with communities.

Looking back on it there's no strong evidence that the policy was directly responsible for reduced gun violence. While gun violence did decline, correlation is not causation and there are other policies that likely had an impact, not to mention that gun violence continued to decline after the end of stop and frisk.

Thank you for such a great comment.  I wouldn't support stopping the same person over and over, constantly, and frisking them.  I view it as a program that allows the officers that are on these streets regularly, who know the community, to keep it safe.  If the officers are harassing some kid every day, I wouldn't support that at all.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #103 on: March 10, 2020, 11:53:13 AM »
What about Bloomberg do you consider radical or extreme?
Support for stop and frisk for starters.  Most of what little I know about his economic policies would be considered at least right of centre, if not hard right, here in Australia as well.

He doesn't support stop and frisk.  That was a program that he drastically reduced.  I like that he's flexible, listened to the community, and made changes.  I prefer right leaning economic policies, left leaning social policies.  So for me, Bloomberg is a pretty solid candidate.  But it won't matter, he's not going to win.


"I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It's exactly the reverse of what they say" - Bloomberg in June 2013 at the end of his time as mayor

Stop and frisk numbers exploded under Bloomberg's time as mayor (rising about 600% from his election to their peak when he was in office).  New York recorded about 100k stop and frisks the year Bloomberg was elected, and about 680k at Bloomberg's peak in 2011.  Eventually, the mayor listened to public outcry and multiple lawsuits and by the time he left office stop and frisk numbers were just under 200k.

To say that Bloomberg drastically reduced stop and frisk is not true.  To say that he was publicly against stop and frisk at any time during his mayoralty (or at any time before deciding to run for president) is not true.  To say that Bloomberg listened to the community is maybe partially true, although how much of that was listening and how much of that was damage control is unclear.

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.  He did drastically reduce stop and frisk in 2013, his last year.  I like that Mike listened to the community, but I've also kind of liked that he wasn't afraid to just do what needed to be done, regardless of political consequences.  His comments about stop and frisk were not wrong, from a factual standpoint.  They were socially wrong.   I personally see people complaining about gun violence and the destruction it's doing in minority neighborhoods, then complaining when a mayor recognizes it and sends the police out to try and save lives.  "You just can't win" comes to mind.

Your support of policies that permit a largely white police force to legally harass people of colour for the crime of being black/latino aside . . . what you initially posted still stands as factually incorrect.  It is not 'drastically reduced' when the stop and frisk instances at the end of Bloomberg's time as mayor amounted to roughly doubling the number of times that police performed state sanctioned targeted harassment of people based on racial background.

If Americans gave a shit about gun violence, or preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals it wouldn't be possible to buy a gun without a background check and easily searchable registries would track all guns to owners to enforce this law.  But they don't . . . so please try to avoid bringing up a completely solvable problem that nobody cares to solve as justification for institutionalized racism.

This is a thread about Bloomberg.  Are you ACTUALLY going to suggest that Mike didn't want to solve gun issues?  He was realistic about it.  He can't just pass gun laws and registries.  So he tried instituting other things that he COULD do to solve the issue.  After trying a different approach, he winded it down because it obviously wasn't getting the results he hoped for, and was viewed as racist.  So he winded down the program.  I think he did the right thing.  You can disagree if you want, that's fine.

You know why we won't have easily searchable registries?  Because (rightfully), nobody trusts the government to not use that registry for confiscation.  When you have candidates who constantly talk about confiscation, and the end goal being full blown gun confiscation, nobody is going to support a registry.  A gun registry would not be a path I would support.  Though, I don't think we have much of a gun problem in this country, I think it's a fake issue - and you'll disagree, thinking I'm an idiot, I know.  That's fine.  I think the real issue is cultural, social, and economic.

I'm sure that Bloomberg wanted to solve gun violence.  The numbers would suggest that policing people by the colour of their skin is not an effective way to do this.  It's great that Bloomberg realized his mistake in the end.  I'm saddened that even at the end of his failed program (after realizing that mistake) he was still doubling rates stop and frisk in New York though.

If you think that gun violence is a fake issue in your country, then why were you pointing to as justification for state sanctioned racism?

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #104 on: March 10, 2020, 01:53:12 PM »
What about Bloomberg do you consider radical or extreme?
Support for stop and frisk for starters.  Most of what little I know about his economic policies would be considered at least right of centre, if not hard right, here in Australia as well.

He doesn't support stop and frisk.  That was a program that he drastically reduced.  I like that he's flexible, listened to the community, and made changes.  I prefer right leaning economic policies, left leaning social policies.  So for me, Bloomberg is a pretty solid candidate.  But it won't matter, he's not going to win.


"I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It's exactly the reverse of what they say" - Bloomberg in June 2013 at the end of his time as mayor

Stop and frisk numbers exploded under Bloomberg's time as mayor (rising about 600% from his election to their peak when he was in office).  New York recorded about 100k stop and frisks the year Bloomberg was elected, and about 680k at Bloomberg's peak in 2011.  Eventually, the mayor listened to public outcry and multiple lawsuits and by the time he left office stop and frisk numbers were just under 200k.

To say that Bloomberg drastically reduced stop and frisk is not true.  To say that he was publicly against stop and frisk at any time during his mayoralty (or at any time before deciding to run for president) is not true.  To say that Bloomberg listened to the community is maybe partially true, although how much of that was listening and how much of that was damage control is unclear.

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.  He did drastically reduce stop and frisk in 2013, his last year.  I like that Mike listened to the community, but I've also kind of liked that he wasn't afraid to just do what needed to be done, regardless of political consequences.  His comments about stop and frisk were not wrong, from a factual standpoint.  They were socially wrong.   I personally see people complaining about gun violence and the destruction it's doing in minority neighborhoods, then complaining when a mayor recognizes it and sends the police out to try and save lives.  "You just can't win" comes to mind.

Your support of policies that permit a largely white police force to legally harass people of colour for the crime of being black/latino aside . . . what you initially posted still stands as factually incorrect.  It is not 'drastically reduced' when the stop and frisk instances at the end of Bloomberg's time as mayor amounted to roughly doubling the number of times that police performed state sanctioned targeted harassment of people based on racial background.

If Americans gave a shit about gun violence, or preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals it wouldn't be possible to buy a gun without a background check and easily searchable registries would track all guns to owners to enforce this law.  But they don't . . . so please try to avoid bringing up a completely solvable problem that nobody cares to solve as justification for institutionalized racism.

This is a thread about Bloomberg.  Are you ACTUALLY going to suggest that Mike didn't want to solve gun issues?  He was realistic about it.  He can't just pass gun laws and registries.  So he tried instituting other things that he COULD do to solve the issue.  After trying a different approach, he winded it down because it obviously wasn't getting the results he hoped for, and was viewed as racist.  So he winded down the program.  I think he did the right thing.  You can disagree if you want, that's fine.

You know why we won't have easily searchable registries?  Because (rightfully), nobody trusts the government to not use that registry for confiscation.  When you have candidates who constantly talk about confiscation, and the end goal being full blown gun confiscation, nobody is going to support a registry.  A gun registry would not be a path I would support.  Though, I don't think we have much of a gun problem in this country, I think it's a fake issue - and you'll disagree, thinking I'm an idiot, I know.  That's fine.  I think the real issue is cultural, social, and economic.

If you think that gun violence is a fake issue in your country, then why were you pointing to as justification for state sanctioned racism?


It wasn't State sanctioned racism, I'm not going to let you bait me in to that one.  Gun violence is an issue in specific communities, it's not a "country wide" problem. The issue is socio-economic, and going after Billy Bobs AR15 in rural Iowa will do nothing to solve issues of violence in Baltimore.  I'm much more concerned with solving real issues, making our lower income communities safer and more prosperous - and that comes from education and jobs.  "Hell yeah I'm taking your AR15" is pandering nonsense with no absolutely no chance of helping the communities that are suffering from violence.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #105 on: March 10, 2020, 02:10:48 PM »
Who said anything about taking AR15s?

My argument was that there should be a registry and mandatory background checks so that the people who sell guns to criminals are able to be caught and prosecuted.  The current US system is built around a lack of records and no record of private sale.  This makes it much easier for criminals (of any race) to get guns, and much harder for law enforcement to trace guns and find out.  The 'gubmint gonna take my guns' argument is just goofy.  If your government really wants your guns, they can just computerize the records that they're not currently allowed to computerize.  You're currently depending on their goodwill not to do this and then kick down your door to take guns anyway - but could reap the benefit of being able to easily catch and prosecute the folks who break the rules and sell guns to criminals.

If the issue of gun violence in minority communities that you're so concerned about is socio-economic, then the approach of increasing police stops of minorities seems to be a poor way to address it.  All stop and frisk does is increase distrust of the police, making low income communities less safe.  Re-invest in the communities and raise the standard of living.  Spend money bringing people up, not beating them down.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #106 on: March 10, 2020, 03:35:34 PM »
Re-invest in the communities and raise the standard of living.  Spend money bringing people up, not beating them down.

This is exactly what is happening under the current administration...

The government cannot just "computerize records that they are not currently allowed to computerize" - you know why?  Because there is no registry or record keeping requirements for private sale.  They can certainly ask for a gun I purchased from a dealer, and my response may just be "sold it, bye."  It's not possible to track guns currently, so that part of your argument simply fails.

A registry is an absolutely terrible idea simply because you cannot trust the government to not abuse it, and rightly so.  Notably because high level politicians have declared that is exactly their intent...  There is nothing goofy about it, since again, they can't actually track or take away guns currently, even if they "computerize everything".... and they have said taking guns is exactly what they want to do...  So why in the world would we trust them with a registry and an actual way to know where every gun is?

And this also creates an issue with mandatory background checks.  Because it essentially does create a registry.  Nobody is against background checks due to not wanting to check peoples backgrounds, it has to do with distrust of the government over what they would do with the data.  And they have absolutely given a reason to distrust them, unfortunately.  And that distrust is making us all less safe.

« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 03:40:31 PM by EngagedToFIRE »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #107 on: March 10, 2020, 03:57:45 PM »
Re-invest in the communities and raise the standard of living.  Spend money bringing people up, not beating them down.

This is exactly what is happening under the current administration...

Huh.


"I've told them to work with local authorities to try to change the terrible deal the city of Chicago entered into with ACLU, which ties law enforcement's hands, and to strongly consider stop and frisk.  It works, and it was meant for problems like Chicago. It was meant for it, stop and frisk."

Donald Trump - 2018 speech to the International Association of Police Chiefs




The government cannot just "computerize records that they are not currently allowed to computerize" - you know why?  Because there is no registry or record keeping requirements for private sale.  They can certainly ask for a gun I purchased from a dealer, and my response may just be "sold it, bye."  It's not possible to track guns currently, so that part of your argument simply fails.

You're right.  My mistake.

The direct pipeline from gun owners to criminals that you just described is (of course) why it's so easy for criminals to get guns.

It is relatively easy to fix this of course.  Every gun purchase should be accompanied with a background check, and should be registered.

As demonstrated in this conversation, there's no concern at all about oppressive government actions - when it's targeting men and women of colour.  I am often left wondering if the real issue is not fear/terror of the government, but rather concern about being held responsible for their actions that is the real sticking point for gun advocates on this issue.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #108 on: March 10, 2020, 05:18:06 PM »
Re-invest in the communities and raise the standard of living.  Spend money bringing people up, not beating them down.

This is exactly what is happening under the current administration...

Huh.


"I've told them to work with local authorities to try to change the terrible deal the city of Chicago entered into with ACLU, which ties law enforcement's hands, and to strongly consider stop and frisk.  It works, and it was meant for problems like Chicago. It was meant for it, stop and frisk."

Donald Trump - 2018 speech to the International Association of Police Chiefs



Opportunity zones, low unemployment, funding for historically black universities, criminal justice reform, rising wages, etc.  My comment had to do with raising the standard of living, spending money to bring people up.  And this administration is absolutely doing that.  It's important to give credit when it's due, regardless of your opinions about the administration in general.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #109 on: March 10, 2020, 05:24:26 PM »

The government cannot just "computerize records that they are not currently allowed to computerize" - you know why?  Because there is no registry or record keeping requirements for private sale.  They can certainly ask for a gun I purchased from a dealer, and my response may just be "sold it, bye."  It's not possible to track guns currently, so that part of your argument simply fails.

You're right.  My mistake.

The direct pipeline from gun owners to criminals that you just described is (of course) why it's so easy for criminals to get guns.

It is relatively easy to fix this of course.  Every gun purchase should be accompanied with a background check, and should be registered.

As demonstrated in this conversation, there's no concern at all about oppressive government actions - when it's targeting men and women of colour.  I am often left wondering if the real issue is not fear/terror of the government, but rather concern about being held responsible for their actions that is the real sticking point for gun advocates on this issue.

An "easy fix" would also just be to ban guns and take them all away.  How "easy" a fix is not at all what is important.  You have the top Democratic candidate for President literally saying he wants to confiscate guns.  I mean, it's obviously fair for people to think that, yes, if the government had a registry, they would use it to confiscate our guns...  Heck, they are literally doing exactly this already.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N3iizSSPOw

So yes, on what planet do you think people shouldn't be extremely weary of gun registration?  "Held responsible for their actions" - no, that's not the issue.  The issue is that the government will absolutely use it to confiscate guns from good, innocent, hard working people.  They already are....  And that's why registration and background checks is a massive issue and won't happen.  The government simply cannot be trusted, which screws all of us and makes us all less safe.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #110 on: March 10, 2020, 06:29:52 PM »
Opportunity zones

I like the idea of the opportunity zones, and would be very happy if they worked.

The research into 75 such zones in 13 states shows little to no benefit though (https://research.upjohn.org/up_press/41/).  Same with this study in Philadelphia (https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15529.html).  And this study from New Jersey indicates that any benefit they receive is effectively poached from nearby areas . . . leaving them poorer off.

Studies of similar projects in the UK show that few jobs end up being created, and that the jobs that are created cost an awful lot - about 45k US per job (https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+tf_/http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/citiesandregions/finalevaluation/).

Also not crazy about the fact that Jared Kushner is the owner of multiple companies directly financially benefiting from the program.  Other folks getting richer on the deal include Anthony Scaramucci, Chris Christie, and Richard LeFrak  (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/business/tax-opportunity-zones.html).

We'll see when all the numbers are finally in I suppose.


low unemployment

Unemployment is certainly low.

The average monthly gain so far under Trump is 182,000 jobs. During the last 36 months under Obama, employers were adding an average of 224,000 jobs a month.

I don't actually believe either president is directly responsible for job numbers going up or down though.  Do you?


funding for historically black universities

Nothing to complain about this, they're doing the right thing.


criminal justice reform

This is kinda a mixed bag.

I'm cautiously a fan of the First Step Act (some concerns about whether or not the manpower to implement it is currently employed at the DOJ).  Seems like things moving in the right direction though.

Not a fan of Trump's support of stop and frisk, bringing back the death penalty, or his extensive and increasing advocacy and use of private prisons.


rising wages, etc.  My comment had to do with raising the standard of living, spending money to bring people up.  And this administration is absolutely doing that.  It's important to give credit when it's due, regardless of your opinions about the administration in general.

I sincerely hope that your doling out of credit is proved to have been correct in the long term, and not overly optimistic.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #111 on: March 10, 2020, 06:34:43 PM »

The government cannot just "computerize records that they are not currently allowed to computerize" - you know why?  Because there is no registry or record keeping requirements for private sale.  They can certainly ask for a gun I purchased from a dealer, and my response may just be "sold it, bye."  It's not possible to track guns currently, so that part of your argument simply fails.

You're right.  My mistake.

The direct pipeline from gun owners to criminals that you just described is (of course) why it's so easy for criminals to get guns.

It is relatively easy to fix this of course.  Every gun purchase should be accompanied with a background check, and should be registered.

As demonstrated in this conversation, there's no concern at all about oppressive government actions - when it's targeting men and women of colour.  I am often left wondering if the real issue is not fear/terror of the government, but rather concern about being held responsible for their actions that is the real sticking point for gun advocates on this issue.

An "easy fix" would also just be to ban guns and take them all away.  How "easy" a fix is not at all what is important.  You have the top Democratic candidate for President literally saying he wants to confiscate guns.  I mean, it's obviously fair for people to think that, yes, if the government had a registry, they would use it to confiscate our guns...  Heck, they are literally doing exactly this already.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N3iizSSPOw

So yes, on what planet do you think people shouldn't be extremely weary of gun registration?  "Held responsible for their actions" - no, that's not the issue.  The issue is that the government will absolutely use it to confiscate guns from good, innocent, hard working people.  They already are....  And that's why registration and background checks is a massive issue and won't happen.  The government simply cannot be trusted, which screws all of us and makes us all less safe.

Not sure what the unreferenced, out of context, sideways youtube clip of someone yelling at police officers is supposed to be telling me.  Can you elaborate a bit?

Your argument is that the government is currently confiscating legal firearms belonging to Americans without cause in an attempt to disarm them and enact a nefarious plot of some sort?

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #112 on: March 10, 2020, 10:46:48 PM »
A registry is an absolutely terrible idea simply because you cannot trust the government to not abuse it, and rightly so.  Notably because high level politicians have declared that is exactly their intent...  There is nothing goofy about it, since again, they can't actually track or take away guns currently, even if they "computerize everything".... and they have said taking guns is exactly what they want to do...  So why in the world would we trust them with a registry and an actual way to know where every gun is?
So lets get this straight.

You can't trust the Government to implement a registry because it might at some time in the future lead to a removal of your right to own firearms.

Yet you can trust the Government to implement a Stop and Frisk policy even though it has been proven to directly target people based on the colour of their skin and actually has infringed upon their right to not be detained and searched without due process.

Have I got that right?

What, pray tell then, is the difference?  Could it be that a registry may infringe your rights in the future but Stop and Frisk has and will only, realistically, infringe the rights of others and not yourself?

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #113 on: March 11, 2020, 04:45:01 AM »
A registry is an absolutely terrible idea simply because you cannot trust the government to not abuse it, and rightly so.  Notably because high level politicians have declared that is exactly their intent...  There is nothing goofy about it, since again, they can't actually track or take away guns currently, even if they "computerize everything".... and they have said taking guns is exactly what they want to do...  So why in the world would we trust them with a registry and an actual way to know where every gun is?
So lets get this straight.

You can't trust the Government to implement a registry because it might at some time in the future lead to a removal of your right to own firearms.

Yet you can trust the Government to implement a Stop and Frisk policy even though it has been proven to directly target people based on the colour of their skin and actually has infringed upon their right to not be detained and searched without due process.

Have I got that right?

What, pray tell then, is the difference?  Could it be that a registry may infringe your rights in the future but Stop and Frisk has and will only, realistically, infringe the rights of others and not yourself?

Dude, you have some nerve to imply that blacks deserve concepts like liberty etc!!

Are you a silly do-gooder SJW or what?


PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2020, 09:07:30 PM »
Scandalous thought right! :-)

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #115 on: March 12, 2020, 01:14:42 PM »
I don't want to take the thread off on a tangent but I do want to comment on stop and frisk. I think I can understand where you're coming from and a lot of people feel the same way. On paper, stop and frisk doesn't sound like a bad policy - focus on where the crime is, right?

But in practice what this amounts to is certain people getting stopped again and again. Can you imagine being a low abiding citizen, particularly a kid or young adult in your formative years, being stopped on a regular basis and interrogated like you're a criminal?

If it happens once, you shake it off, but this kind of treatment wears on a person. The long term result was that the communities being disproportionately targeted felt like the police were the enemy and I can't blame them. Those being stopped felt scared even when they had done nothing wrong and again, with the inappropriate use of force we see in the news, I can't blame them. Sometimes this resulted in people saying no or running away and all of a sudden they were a criminal for resisting arrest or disobeying a police officer. The police were creating criminals and damaging their relationship with communities.

Looking back on it there's no strong evidence that the policy was directly responsible for reduced gun violence. While gun violence did decline, correlation is not causation and there are other policies that likely had an impact, not to mention that gun violence continued to decline after the end of stop and frisk.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/nypd-police-violent-arrest-canarsie

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #116 on: March 13, 2020, 01:38:59 PM »

The government cannot just "computerize records that they are not currently allowed to computerize" - you know why?  Because there is no registry or record keeping requirements for private sale.  They can certainly ask for a gun I purchased from a dealer, and my response may just be "sold it, bye."  It's not possible to track guns currently, so that part of your argument simply fails.

You're right.  My mistake.

The direct pipeline from gun owners to criminals that you just described is (of course) why it's so easy for criminals to get guns.

It is relatively easy to fix this of course.  Every gun purchase should be accompanied with a background check, and should be registered.

As demonstrated in this conversation, there's no concern at all about oppressive government actions - when it's targeting men and women of colour.  I am often left wondering if the real issue is not fear/terror of the government, but rather concern about being held responsible for their actions that is the real sticking point for gun advocates on this issue.

An "easy fix" would also just be to ban guns and take them all away.  How "easy" a fix is not at all what is important.  You have the top Democratic candidate for President literally saying he wants to confiscate guns.  I mean, it's obviously fair for people to think that, yes, if the government had a registry, they would use it to confiscate our guns...  Heck, they are literally doing exactly this already.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N3iizSSPOw

So yes, on what planet do you think people shouldn't be extremely weary of gun registration?  "Held responsible for their actions" - no, that's not the issue.  The issue is that the government will absolutely use it to confiscate guns from good, innocent, hard working people.  They already are....  And that's why registration and background checks is a massive issue and won't happen.  The government simply cannot be trusted, which screws all of us and makes us all less safe.

Not sure what the unreferenced, out of context, sideways youtube clip of someone yelling at police officers is supposed to be telling me.  Can you elaborate a bit?

Your argument is that the government is currently confiscating legal firearms belonging to Americans without cause in an attempt to disarm them and enact a nefarious plot of some sort?

The video was pretty simple and explained right in the description.  The whole video is him discussing the issue with the officers there to steal his property.  He registered his AR15's as required by law, before the deadline, then when the officers came out for a "registration check" - turned out to just be confiscation.  They took his registered guns, that he just bought and registered, over some ridiculous technicalities.  The officers were checking to make sure they were "legal configuration", they cited some nonsense about the guns technically being pistols and "dangerous" and subject to a drop test, and what not.

" They lied right off the bat and said they wanted to see if they were in legal config, measure oal and take pics. As soon as i handed them over they went straight to citing the law, writing up a receipt and had "the law" that i broke. Manufacturing of a unsafe pistol that had not gone through the Calif drop safety test."

Who said anything about confiscating in order to enact a nefarious plot?  No.  It's anti-gun people that simply want to have no guns and they are pushing and pushing, little by little, to get there.  Registration is absolutely part of the plan.  They are literally saying exactly this, so it's not some hidden plot.  When Joe talks about taking AR15's, that they should be illegal, etc... And you see CA doing essentially this, forcing registration, then coming up with ways to confiscate.  And next legislation will be simply outlawing the guns, then sending police to verify you don't have your AR15 in the State anymore, etc.

It's all pretty straight forward what is going on.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #117 on: March 13, 2020, 01:49:06 PM »

You can't trust the Government to implement a registry because it might at some time in the future lead to a removal of your right to own firearms.

Right.  Because this is exactly what they are ALREADY doing and have said they plan on doing more of.  A front runner for president has said he absolutely plans on confiscating fire arms.  Your next comment is a false equivalence.

Yet you can trust the Government to implement a Stop and Frisk policy even though it has been proven to directly target people based on the colour of their skin and actually has infringed upon their right to not be detained and searched without due process.


You are falsely claiming that I support unconstitutional stop and frisk.  That I support harassing people based on the color of their skin.  I have said the exact opposite.  I support stop and frisk if it's used responsibly and LEGALLY.  Stop and frisk is actually used widely all over the country, properly, by just about every jurisdiction.  It's called a Terry stop, and officers check suspicious people all the time, everywhere.  What you are doing is using an example of it being used illegally, racial profiling, and then trying to pin it on me as if I'm some sort of racist.  That's not going to happen.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #118 on: March 13, 2020, 02:20:33 PM »
The video was pretty simple and explained right in the description.  The whole video is him discussing the issue with the officers there to steal his property.  He registered his AR15's as required by law, before the deadline, then when the officers came out for a "registration check" - turned out to just be confiscation.  They took his registered guns, that he just bought and registered, over some ridiculous technicalities.  The officers were checking to make sure they were "legal configuration", they cited some nonsense about the guns technically being pistols and "dangerous" and subject to a drop test, and what not.

What you just wrote is not in the description from the video.  The description states:

"The doj stopped by for a assualt [sic] weapons registration check up only to confiscate."

Your statement above claims:
- officers were there to steal his property
-  He registered his AR15's as required by law, before the deadline
- the officers came out for a "registration check" - turned out to just be confiscation
- They took his registered guns, that he just bought and registered, over some ridiculous technicalities
- they cited some nonsense about the guns technically being pistols

Where are you getting the information that you're basing these claims on?

A quick google search would indicate that there are pretty strict rules in California regarding the legal type of AR pistol that can be owned.  As outlined in this article:  https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/

I don't really know what was going on in that video (there's no context or explanation given), but my suspicion is that the gun owner didn't comply with the law.  In that case, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with police confiscating an illegal weapon.



" They lied right off the bat and said they wanted to see if they were in legal config, measure oal and take pics. As soon as i handed them over they went straight to citing the law, writing up a receipt and had "the law" that i broke. Manufacturing of a unsafe pistol that had not gone through the Calif drop safety test."

OK.  So the guy in the video admitted that he was in violation of the law, and was informed of it.  Again . . . why do you believe that the law should not apply to this man?



Who said anything about confiscating in order to enact a nefarious plot?  No.  It's anti-gun people that simply want to have no guns and they are pushing and pushing, little by little, to get there.  Registration is absolutely part of the plan.  They are literally saying exactly this, so it's not some hidden plot.  When Joe talks about taking AR15's, that they should be illegal, etc... And you see CA doing essentially this, forcing registration, then coming up with ways to confiscate.

Again, I'm struggling to see the connection between this single video and the allegations you've made.



And next legislation will be simply outlawing the guns, then sending police to verify you don't have your AR15 in the State anymore, etc.

It's all pretty straight forward what is going on.

Seems like a guy broke the law and was cited for his actions, which is pretty straight forward.  I don't understand where the rage/concern about confiscation comes in here.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2020, 02:31:54 PM by GuitarStv »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #119 on: March 15, 2020, 04:18:49 AM »
You are falsely claiming that I support unconstitutional stop and frisk.  That I support harassing people based on the color of their skin.  I have said the exact opposite.  I support stop and frisk if it's used responsibly and LEGALLY.  Stop and frisk is actually used widely all over the country, properly, by just about every jurisdiction.  It's called a Terry stop, and officers check suspicious people all the time, everywhere.  What you are doing is using an example of it being used illegally, racial profiling, and then trying to pin it on me as if I'm some sort of racist.  That's not going to happen.
I could be wrong so please do correct me if so, but my understanding is that for a "Terry stop" the Police actually need something known as "reasonable suspicion".  That is, they need a reasonable suspicion that person in particular has committed a crime in the immediate past.  What constitutes a reasonable suspicion is something that, while not 100% explicit in all circumstances, is pretty well-defined and understood.  The chance of a Police Officer getting away with a Terry stop simply because the person was black is pretty much non-existent.

Stop and Frisk on the other hand required no such reasonable suspicion.  It merely requires that the Police Office wants to do so and the overwhelming majority of cases, it is blatantly clear, that the person being stopped and frisked be black.

There is no such thing as Stop and Frisk being used "responsibly and LEGALLY".  By its very nature it is detainment and search without any due process.  Not even the due process that has the lowest standard to meet, which is "reasonable suspicion".

So yes, I'm sorry to inform you, you do support a policy that is explicitly racist and doesn't meet even the minimum standard of legality.  I can only assume because it does not target your rights like you fear registration of firearms would.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #120 on: April 10, 2020, 01:32:43 PM »
You are falsely claiming that I support unconstitutional stop and frisk.  That I support harassing people based on the color of their skin.  I have said the exact opposite.  I support stop and frisk if it's used responsibly and LEGALLY.  Stop and frisk is actually used widely all over the country, properly, by just about every jurisdiction.  It's called a Terry stop, and officers check suspicious people all the time, everywhere.  What you are doing is using an example of it being used illegally, racial profiling, and then trying to pin it on me as if I'm some sort of racist.  That's not going to happen.
I could be wrong so please do correct me if so, but my understanding is that for a "Terry stop" the Police actually need something known as "reasonable suspicion".  That is, they need a reasonable suspicion that person in particular has committed a crime in the immediate past.  What constitutes a reasonable suspicion is something that, while not 100% explicit in all circumstances, is pretty well-defined and understood.  The chance of a Police Officer getting away with a Terry stop simply because the person was black is pretty much non-existent.

Stop and Frisk on the other hand required no such reasonable suspicion.  It merely requires that the Police Office wants to do so and the overwhelming majority of cases, it is blatantly clear, that the person being stopped and frisked be black.

There is no such thing as Stop and Frisk being used "responsibly and LEGALLY".  By its very nature it is detainment and search without any due process.  Not even the due process that has the lowest standard to meet, which is "reasonable suspicion".

So yes, I'm sorry to inform you, you do support a policy that is explicitly racist and doesn't meet even the minimum standard of legality.  I can only assume because it does not target your rights like you fear registration of firearms would.

You are wrong :)

So I will correct you.  Stop and frisk and Terry stop are the same thing.  Terry v Ohio was a Supreme Court case, and applied nationwide.  It essentially gave officers the right to frisk with reasonable suspicion, where previously an officer would need to essentially make an arrest in order to frisk.

So yes, Stop and Frisk can and is used reasonably and legally by virtually every police department in the USA.  In NYC, there was a lot of controversy about it being used illegally, which I obviously do not support.  Unfortunately, the understanding of stop and frisk and what it means seems to be that of the NYC controversy and quite misunderstood (your post being evidence of that).

Your comment that I support a policy that is explicitly racist and "doesn't even meet a minimum standard of illegality" is just ridiculous, and then again, to try and imply I'm some sort of racist is actually quite offensive.  Terry v. Ohio is settled law, by the SCOTUS.  Supporting the ability for officers to search suspicious people is not "racist."

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #121 on: April 10, 2020, 01:43:31 PM »
I think I understand now.  You support theoretical stop and frisk, but not stop and frisk in practice (where it has regularly been used to enforce policing based on race and has been shown to have little/no impact on crime).  Is that correct?

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #122 on: April 10, 2020, 03:16:34 PM »
I think I understand now.  You support theoretical stop and frisk, but not stop and frisk in practice (where it has regularly been used to enforce policing based on race and has been shown to have little/no impact on crime).  Is that correct?

No.  I support stop and frisk, which is properly used widely all over the country every day by good, honest, decent men and women in uniform who are working to keep our communities safe.

Is it just that you think all police officers are raging racists looking to abuse people of color?  Is that correct?  Because that's what your post implies.

And by the way, "in practice" it's most certainly not "regularly used to enforce policing based on race".  Such a ridiculous statement.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #123 on: April 10, 2020, 04:23:10 PM »
You are wrong :)

So I will correct you.  Stop and frisk and Terry stop are the same thing.  Terry v Ohio was a Supreme Court case, and applied nationwide.  It essentially gave officers the right to frisk with reasonable suspicion, where previously an officer would need to essentially make an arrest in order to frisk.

So yes, Stop and Frisk can and is used reasonably and legally by virtually every police department in the USA.  In NYC, there was a lot of controversy about it being used illegally, which I obviously do not support.  Unfortunately, the understanding of stop and frisk and what it means seems to be that of the NYC controversy and quite misunderstood (your post being evidence of that).

Your comment that I support a policy that is explicitly racist and "doesn't even meet a minimum standard of illegality" is just ridiculous, and then again, to try and imply I'm some sort of racist is actually quite offensive.  Terry v. Ohio is settled law, by the SCOTUS.  Supporting the ability for officers to search suspicious people is not "racist."
I see where the confusion lay.

NYC used the Terry Stop ruling to justify Stop and Frisk.  However, the difference is that for a Terry Stop to be legal the Police Officer conducting the stop required a "reasonable suspicion" that the person being stopped had committed a crime whereas NYPD Stop and Frisk, as evidenced by the actual reality, required no such "reasonable suspicion".

Now you may quite correctly claim that the NYPD regulations state that a "Reasonable suspicion" was required, as per the SCOTUS ruling.  However, the reality is that NYPD Officers routinely and with the full support of their superiors and at least one Mayor, stopped people without any reasonable suspicion.  In fact, a case could easily be made considering the rapid increase in the number of such stops, that Officers were encouraged and perhaps even mandated, to stop and frisk anyone they wanted.

So you want to believe it was a few rogue Officers who illegally used the Terry Stop ruling to engage in race based civil rights abuse.  The reality is though that regardless of whatever written regulations the NYPD had in place, the actual reality on the ground was that the NYPD encouraged and condoned the widespread abuse of the Terry Stop rules.

So, I will amend my comment and state only that you if you support the real world implementation of "Stop and Frisk" procedures (as your comments in this thread indicate you do) then you support the NYPD flagrantly abusing a SCOTUS ruling to engage in race based civil rights abuse on an organisation wide level with the full support of Senior Officers and the Mayor of the city.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #124 on: April 10, 2020, 06:05:05 PM »
You are wrong :)

So I will correct you.  Stop and frisk and Terry stop are the same thing.  Terry v Ohio was a Supreme Court case, and applied nationwide.  It essentially gave officers the right to frisk with reasonable suspicion, where previously an officer would need to essentially make an arrest in order to frisk.

So yes, Stop and Frisk can and is used reasonably and legally by virtually every police department in the USA.  In NYC, there was a lot of controversy about it being used illegally, which I obviously do not support.  Unfortunately, the understanding of stop and frisk and what it means seems to be that of the NYC controversy and quite misunderstood (your post being evidence of that).

Your comment that I support a policy that is explicitly racist and "doesn't even meet a minimum standard of illegality" is just ridiculous, and then again, to try and imply I'm some sort of racist is actually quite offensive.  Terry v. Ohio is settled law, by the SCOTUS.  Supporting the ability for officers to search suspicious people is not "racist."
I see where the confusion lay.

NYC used the Terry Stop ruling to justify Stop and Frisk.  However, the difference is that for a Terry Stop to be legal the Police Officer conducting the stop required a "reasonable suspicion" that the person being stopped had committed a crime whereas NYPD Stop and Frisk, as evidenced by the actual reality, required no such "reasonable suspicion".

Now you may quite correctly claim that the NYPD regulations state that a "Reasonable suspicion" was required, as per the SCOTUS ruling.  However, the reality is that NYPD Officers routinely and with the full support of their superiors and at least one Mayor, stopped people without any reasonable suspicion.  In fact, a case could easily be made considering the rapid increase in the number of such stops, that Officers were encouraged and perhaps even mandated, to stop and frisk anyone they wanted.

So you want to believe it was a few rogue Officers who illegally used the Terry Stop ruling to engage in race based civil rights abuse.  The reality is though that regardless of whatever written regulations the NYPD had in place, the actual reality on the ground was that the NYPD encouraged and condoned the widespread abuse of the Terry Stop rules.

So, I will amend my comment and state only that you if you support the real world implementation of "Stop and Frisk" procedures (as your comments in this thread indicate you do) then you support the NYPD flagrantly abusing a SCOTUS ruling to engage in race based civil rights abuse on an organisation wide level with the full support of Senior Officers and the Mayor of the city.

So in your world, NYPD's questionable implementation of it (it was vigorously fought in court, with the original judge finding against NYPD being thrown off it, the flagrant abuse department wide is nowhere near as clear as you are suggesting).... because of that controversy in a single city, apparently, departments all over the country are just raging racists?  Your view of police is kind of offensive.  And that I'm essentially a racist myself who supports this? You do know how absurd your argument is, right?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 06:11:34 PM by EngagedToFIRE »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #125 on: April 10, 2020, 07:03:29 PM »
So in your world, NYPD's questionable implementation of it (it was vigorously fought in court, with the original judge finding against NYPD being thrown off it, the flagrant abuse department wide is nowhere near as clear as you are suggesting).... because of that controversy in a single city, apparently, departments all over the country are just raging racists?  Your view of police is kind of offensive.  And that I'm essentially a racist myself who supports this?
Not at all.

Here's the thing....

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you can call it a dog all you like but it's still a duck.

The NYPD can call "Stop and Frisk" a "Terry Stop" all they like but the reality is NYPD Police Officers were encouraged to stop and frisk anyone they liked and were completely supported in doing so even when it was patently obvious there was no "reasonable suspicion" that the person being frisked had committed a crime.  Without "reasonable suspicion" that the person had committed a crime, it simply is not a "Terry Stop" no matter how much you or the NYPD want to call it that.

And please note "being black", even in a neighbourhood where most crime is committed by black people, does not constitute a reasonable suspicion that the specific person in question has committed a crime regardless of how much you seemingly want it to.
Quote from: EngagedToFIRE
You do know how absurd your argument is, right?
Considering your strawman is not any reflection of my argument I would have to say no.  But you knew that already.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #126 on: April 13, 2020, 08:36:08 AM »
So in your world, NYPD's questionable implementation of it (it was vigorously fought in court, with the original judge finding against NYPD being thrown off it, the flagrant abuse department wide is nowhere near as clear as you are suggesting).... because of that controversy in a single city, apparently, departments all over the country are just raging racists?  Your view of police is kind of offensive.  And that I'm essentially a racist myself who supports this?
Not at all.

Here's the thing....

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you can call it a dog all you like but it's still a duck.

The NYPD can call "Stop and Frisk" a "Terry Stop" all they like but the reality is NYPD Police Officers were encouraged to stop and frisk anyone they liked and were completely supported in doing so even when it was patently obvious there was no "reasonable suspicion" that the person being frisked had committed a crime.  Without "reasonable suspicion" that the person had committed a crime, it simply is not a "Terry Stop" no matter how much you or the NYPD want to call it that.

And please note "being black", even in a neighbourhood where most crime is committed by black people, does not constitute a reasonable suspicion that the specific person in question has committed a crime regardless of how much you seemingly want it to.
Quote from: EngagedToFIRE
You do know how absurd your argument is, right?
Considering your strawman is not any reflection of my argument I would have to say no.  But you knew that already.

Your argument is clear, and you continue to make it.  It looks/quacks like a duck (the duck is racism) and that I supposedly support it but just call it by a different name.  You are calling me a racist, and you are calling, essentially every police officer a racist, too.  But you HAVE to do that in order to try and make your point.  If you are going to claim that Terry Stops are racist, this is the rabbit hole you have to go down.

In reality, a terry stop is much simpler.  The Supreme Court found that reasonable suspicion is a valid reason to perform a search of a person.  Good, decent, hard working police officers search suspicious people every day, all over the country.  They aren't racist for doing that.  And using one questionable program from a single department is not going to make the case that police all over the country are just raging racists who like to molest black people for any made up reason they can come up with.

Quote
"And please note "being black", even in a neighbourhood where most crime is committed by black people, does not constitute a reasonable suspicion that the specific person in question has committed a crime regardless of how much you seemingly want it to."

Wow, talk about a strawman.  Have I ever even implied such a thing?  Of course not.  But THAT is your argument and now you said I seemingly want being black to be considered suspicious?  My goodness.  Yes, your arguments are absurd and now you are flat out making things up to try and be right.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #127 on: April 13, 2020, 11:04:49 AM »
I guess what's confusing is your support for that 'one questionable program from a single department'.  This comment here:

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.

You were referring to the racist version of stop and frisk that occurred in New York under Mike Bloomberg with this post, were you not?  That was what kicked off this whole discussion to begin with.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 11:06:38 AM by GuitarStv »

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #128 on: April 13, 2020, 11:41:49 AM »
I guess what's confusing is your support for that 'one questionable program from a single department'.  This comment here:

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.

You were referring to the racist version of stop and frisk that occurred in New York under Mike Bloomberg with this post, were you not?  That was what kicked off this whole discussion to begin with.

Even that one single program is controversial.  Simply calling it "racist" doesn't make it so.  A few bad actors doesn't mean the intent of the program, or even most of those enforcing, were actually racist or doing anything racist at all.  The judge that originally found the program racist is an activist judge who was disgraced and removed from the case - and still writes ridiculous activist nonsense to this day - and heck, even she said Bloomberg wasn't racist.

Were there problems with the program?  Yes.  It didn't accomplish it's goal, which was, in fact, a noble goal and the opposite of racism, as the goal was to save lives in the black neighborhoods...
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 11:45:12 AM by EngagedToFIRE »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #129 on: April 13, 2020, 11:54:36 AM »
I guess what's confusing is your support for that 'one questionable program from a single department'.  This comment here:

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.

You were referring to the racist version of stop and frisk that occurred in New York under Mike Bloomberg with this post, were you not?  That was what kicked off this whole discussion to begin with.

Even that one single program is controversial.  Simply calling it "racist" doesn't make it so.  A few bad actors doesn't mean the intent of the program, or even most of those enforcing, were actually racist or doing anything racist at all.  The judge that originally found the program racist is an activist judge who was disgraced and removed from the case - and still writes ridiculous activist nonsense to this day.

I agree with you - simply calling it 'racist' doesn't make it so.  The fact that 90 percent of the people stopped by the program were black or latino (at a time when about 50% of the population was black/latino) does though.

Your saying that this is the result of 'a few bad actors' is disingenuous, and overlooks that it was systematic and wide spread racial targeting strategy by the police force - fully (and explicitly) condoned by then mayor Mike Bloomberg.  The same Bloomberg of "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little" fame.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #130 on: April 13, 2020, 12:05:30 PM »
I guess what's confusing is your support for that 'one questionable program from a single department'.  This comment here:

For what it's worth, I support stop and frisk.  Which I'm guessing won't be a popular opinion here.  I think it was a good try to solve real issues.

You were referring to the racist version of stop and frisk that occurred in New York under Mike Bloomberg with this post, were you not?  That was what kicked off this whole discussion to begin with.

Even that one single program is controversial.  Simply calling it "racist" doesn't make it so.  A few bad actors doesn't mean the intent of the program, or even most of those enforcing, were actually racist or doing anything racist at all.  The judge that originally found the program racist is an activist judge who was disgraced and removed from the case - and still writes ridiculous activist nonsense to this day.

I agree with you - simply calling it 'racist' doesn't make it so.  The fact that 90 percent of the people stopped by the program were black or latino (at a time when about 50% of the population was black/latino) does though.

Your saying that this is the result of 'a few bad actors' is disingenuous, and overlooks that it was systematic and wide spread racial targeting strategy by the police force - fully (and explicitly) condoned by then mayor Mike Bloomberg.  The same Bloomberg of "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little" fame.

If I recall, the volume of stops for black and latinos was quite in line with the numbers of gun violence.  Bloombergs comment wasn't racist.  He was speaking of actual criminal/victim data.  If 96% of gun crime suspects were black, if you stop 20% of other races, then it's just a fact that it's disproportionate.  The context was important.  (I'm just making up those numbers, I don't recall the actual numbers).  Again, I don't necessarily agree with that specific program in NYC.  But the facts are, they tried something bold, it didn't work as well as they hoped, and they scaled it back accordingly.  That sounds like reasonable governance to me.  The gun crime was centered in minority neighborhoods and I believe it was absolutely out of control, huge numbers.  So yes, you might expect a majority of stops/frisks to be minorities just by the fact the issues are in their neighborhoods.

Of course, the issue is socio-economic and sending police out the way they did wasn't all that helpful.  Along with poor oversight and management of the program, it didn't seem to work.  But I like the idea in general of a stronger police presence in areas with issues... And giving the police the tools they need.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 12:08:13 PM by EngagedToFIRE »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #131 on: April 13, 2020, 12:17:57 PM »
Again, I don't necessarily agree with that specific program in NYC.

OK.  It was your agreement with that specific program in NYC that started this discussion.  If you've changed your mind on that, then we've got a lot less to argue about.



But the facts are, they tried something bold, it didn't work as well as they hoped, and they scaled it back accordingly.  That sounds like reasonable governance to me.

The way that trying a gun registry for all sales of weapons in the US, or restricting the sale of hand guns across the country would be trying something bold.  We could spend a decade or two trying it out and then scale it back if it doesn't seem to be working.  It's all a part of reasonable governance, right?  Or is that different because this time the 'reasonable governance' would impact you personally?



Of course, the issue is socio-economic and sending police out the way they did wasn't all that helpful.  Along with poor oversight and management of the program, it didn't seem to work.  But I like the idea in general of a stronger police presence in areas with issues... And giving the police the tools they need.

Agreed, that it's important to give police the tools that they need.  But it's also important not to set up a situation where people's rights are abused for no societal benefit.  This is what happened with stop and frisk in New York.  Predictably, targeting black/latino people did not improve crime in any appreciable way.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #132 on: April 13, 2020, 12:25:04 PM »
This comes up as a common excuse to racist policies like stop & frisk. Usually it'll come down to the person saying something like: "Well it was just a few bad actors" or "I mean it just has a few problems that we can change."

What you really need to consider is that when a policy like stop & frisk ends up attacking a specific group of people at waaaay more frequently than others, then maybe the "theoretical" stop & frisk you have in your mind doesn't actually exist?

The prevailing theory of the early 1900's was that "separate but equal" was constitutional and fair. We know today that it was, in fact, not. The problem was not that a "few bad actors" prevented the public goods available to blacks to be just well-maintained as whites' public goods. The fact was that the idea itself propagated and exacerbated the prejudicial tendencies in people and the system as a whole.

When we evaluate policies such as "stop and frisk", you cannot imagine a system of perfect, fully self-sacrificing, unprejudiced cops. That's called a fantasy. You must work with the people we have and any system you want to implement on society must have protections and stop-gap measures that prevent the worst of the human condition from manifesting itself.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #133 on: April 13, 2020, 04:31:34 PM »
Your argument is clear, and you continue to make it.  It looks/quacks like a duck (the duck is racism) and that I supposedly support it but just call it by a different name.  You are calling me a racist, and you are calling, essentially every police officer a racist, too.  But you HAVE to do that in order to try and make your point.  If you are going to claim that Terry Stops are racist, this is the rabbit hole you have to go down.
I guess my argument isn't as clear as you claim.
Quote from: EngagedToFIRE
In reality, a terry stop is much simpler.  The Supreme Court found that reasonable suspicion is a valid reason to perform a search of a person.  Good, decent, hard working police officers search suspicious people every day, all over the country.  They aren't racist for doing that.  And using one questionable program from a single department is not going to make the case that police all over the country are just raging racists who like to molest black people for any made up reason they can come up with.
You can keep calling it a Terry Stop all you like.  That doesn't make it a Terry Stop.  You keep conveniently forgetting that a Terry Stop requires that the Police Office has a "reasonable suspicion" that the specific individual being searched had committed a crime.  A "reasonable suspicion" is, whilst not explicitly defined in every single circumstance, a well understood principle.  Some examples might include matching the description of a person known to have committed a crime recently, running from the scene of a crime, acting suspiciously, witness testimony.  Get the picture?

The Stop and Frisk policy simply ignored that requirement.

Let me ask you this, if "Stop and Frisk" was merely a Terry Stop
1:  Why institute an entire policy around "Stopping and Frisking" large numbers of people on a regular basis?
2:  Why not simply remind Officers at the daily briefing to perform a Terry Stop if they have reasonable suspicion of someone having committed a crime, as would be their job anyway?
3:  Most importantly, why did the number of "Terry Stops" suddenly sky rocket under this policy? 

Did crime suddenly sky rocket and hence tens of thousands more "Terry Stops" were suddenly being performed just coincidentally when an entire policy built upon "Stopping and Frisking" random people was implemented?  Why were Terry Stops not being done prior?  Were NYPD Officers up to that point incompetent and unable to form "reasonable suspicion" or was there just far, far less crime in NYC up to that point?
Quote from: EngagedToFIRE
Wow, talk about a strawman.  Have I ever even implied such a thing?  Of course not.  But THAT is your argument and now you said I seemingly want being black to be considered suspicious?  My goodness.  Yes, your arguments are absurd and now you are flat out making things up to try and be right.
Lets see....

1:  The evidence certainly suggests that being black was a key component in choosing who to "Stop and Frisk".  That is almost entirely beyond dispute unless one wants to be argue in bad faith.
2:  You claim "Stop and Frisk" is in actuality a "Terry Stop".
3:  A "Terry Stop" requires the Officer to have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person being "stopped and frisked" has actually committed a crime.
4:  Evidence shows that in approximately 75% of cases no crime had been committed.  So either the NYPD Officers were completely incompetent at their job or they believed being black constituted a reasonable suspicion.
5:  You support the "Stop and Frisk" policy.

So you either believe the majority of NYPD Officers were completely incompetent and yet still had the complete support of their Senior Officers and Mayor or you believe that the NYPD Officers were correct in thinking being black constituted a "reasonable suspicion" of having committed a crime.

Which is it?

ETA:  I posted before reading the rest of the thread.

I see now that you seem to admit the "Stop and Frisk" policy, which previously you explicitly supported, was a flawed policy.

So I'd ask how is a "Stop and Frisk" different to a "Terry Stop".  If they are actually no different, as you have been arguing for some time, then "Stop and Frisk" is not flawed at all but merely the implementation of current legislation.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 04:39:26 PM by PKFFW »

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #134 on: April 13, 2020, 05:24:57 PM »
The Stop and Frisk policy simply ignored that requirement.

No, it didn't.  Which makes the rest of your comment pointless.  The problem is, you are just kind of making things up as you go along because you don't actually understand the topic one bit, which makes it very difficult to discuss with you.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/140.50
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 05:26:35 PM by EngagedToFIRE »

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #135 on: April 13, 2020, 05:31:58 PM »

But the facts are, they tried something bold, it didn't work as well as they hoped, and they scaled it back accordingly.  That sounds like reasonable governance to me.

The way that trying a gun registry for all sales of weapons in the US, or restricting the sale of hand guns across the country would be trying something bold.  We could spend a decade or two trying it out and then scale it back if it doesn't seem to be working.  It's all a part of reasonable governance, right?  Or is that different because this time the 'reasonable governance' would impact you personally?



Of course, the issue is socio-economic and sending police out the way they did wasn't all that helpful.  Along with poor oversight and management of the program, it didn't seem to work.  But I like the idea in general of a stronger police presence in areas with issues... And giving the police the tools they need.

Agreed, that it's important to give police the tools that they need.  But it's also important not to set up a situation where people's rights are abused for no societal benefit.  This is what happened with stop and frisk in New York.  Predictably, targeting black/latino people did not improve crime in any appreciable way.

Nice try.  But that's a false equivalence.  Stop and frisk is perfectly legal and has been upheld by the supreme court.  Comparing that to a constitutional violation is apples and oranges.  By the way, why would you assume the second amendment is so important to me, but not the person being stopped by police in terry stops?

Right, the stop and frisk program in NY didn't appear to work as intended, and was phased out quite rapidly.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #136 on: April 13, 2020, 05:34:37 PM »
This comes up as a common excuse to racist policies like stop & frisk. Usually it'll come down to the person saying something like: "Well it was just a few bad actors" or "I mean it just has a few problems that we can change."

What you really need to consider is that when a policy like stop & frisk ends up attacking a specific group of people at waaaay more frequently than others, then maybe the "theoretical" stop & frisk you have in your mind doesn't actually exist?

The prevailing theory of the early 1900's was that "separate but equal" was constitutional and fair. We know today that it was, in fact, not. The problem was not that a "few bad actors" prevented the public goods available to blacks to be just well-maintained as whites' public goods. The fact was that the idea itself propagated and exacerbated the prejudicial tendencies in people and the system as a whole.

When we evaluate policies such as "stop and frisk", you cannot imagine a system of perfect, fully self-sacrificing, unprejudiced cops. That's called a fantasy. You must work with the people we have and any system you want to implement on society must have protections and stop-gap measures that prevent the worst of the human condition from manifesting itself.

Stop and frisk isn't racist, that's ridiculous.  I'm not going to argue it over again, go read the thread.

If it's not just a few bad apples, then you are assuming a massive percentage of our police are just racist trash.   Assuming most officers are good, decent people is hardly a "fantasy."  If you are that anti-police, and think they are all just racists, then we don't have much to talk about.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #137 on: April 13, 2020, 06:16:25 PM »
This comes up as a common excuse to racist policies like stop & frisk. Usually it'll come down to the person saying something like: "Well it was just a few bad actors" or "I mean it just has a few problems that we can change."

What you really need to consider is that when a policy like stop & frisk ends up attacking a specific group of people at waaaay more frequently than others, then maybe the "theoretical" stop & frisk you have in your mind doesn't actually exist?

The prevailing theory of the early 1900's was that "separate but equal" was constitutional and fair. We know today that it was, in fact, not. The problem was not that a "few bad actors" prevented the public goods available to blacks to be just well-maintained as whites' public goods. The fact was that the idea itself propagated and exacerbated the prejudicial tendencies in people and the system as a whole.

When we evaluate policies such as "stop and frisk", you cannot imagine a system of perfect, fully self-sacrificing, unprejudiced cops. That's called a fantasy. You must work with the people we have and any system you want to implement on society must have protections and stop-gap measures that prevent the worst of the human condition from manifesting itself.

Stop and frisk isn't racist, that's ridiculous.  I'm not going to argue it over again, go read the thread.

If it's not just a few bad apples, then you are assuming a massive percentage of our police are just racist trash.   Assuming most officers are good, decent people is hardly a "fantasy."  If you are that anti-police, and think they are all just racists, then we don't have much to talk about.

Oh ok kind of just ignore the whole point, don't actually reply to anything I wrote and scoff.

I'll try again with another example.

30% of Germans participated in WWII. Do we then conclude that 30% of Germans were anti-semites? At the very least 30% of them were actively fighting and participating in an anti-semitic regime. And when the war was over did a large chunk of them magically turn back to not being anti-semitic?

I never called the police "racist trash". I called the policy racist. The fact is that racist regimes and policies can in fact, cause people who would normally not behave in a racist manner to start behaving in a racist manner. There is something in people's inclination to listen to authority figures that causes them to override their internal moral guides. None of us are free from that.

I don't even believe Bloomberg himself is racist, but he bought into a policy idea that is racist because he was blind to its full implications and consequences.

So please, engage with the argument that I'm trying to present here this time.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #138 on: April 13, 2020, 07:32:10 PM »

But the facts are, they tried something bold, it didn't work as well as they hoped, and they scaled it back accordingly.  That sounds like reasonable governance to me.

The way that trying a gun registry for all sales of weapons in the US, or restricting the sale of hand guns across the country would be trying something bold.  We could spend a decade or two trying it out and then scale it back if it doesn't seem to be working.  It's all a part of reasonable governance, right?  Or is that different because this time the 'reasonable governance' would impact you personally?


Of course, the issue is socio-economic and sending police out the way they did wasn't all that helpful.  Along with poor oversight and management of the program, it didn't seem to work.  But I like the idea in general of a stronger police presence in areas with issues... And giving the police the tools they need.

Agreed, that it's important to give police the tools that they need.  But it's also important not to set up a situation where people's rights are abused for no societal benefit.  This is what happened with stop and frisk in New York.  Predictably, targeting black/latino people did not improve crime in any appreciable way.

Nice try.  But that's a false equivalence.  Stop and frisk is perfectly legal and has been upheld by the supreme court.  Comparing that to a constitutional violation is apples and oranges.

There's nothing in the constitution that legally prevents regulation of hand guns or a gun registry.

While it's conceivable that it could be performed in a legal manner, stop and frisk as it had been performed routinely by the entire police department in New York was ruled an unconstitutional violation of rights in New York's district courts.  So I'm not sure how you're arguing that is was perfectly legal . . . to the best of my knowledge, the supreme court has not ruled on the actions that took place in New York under Mayor Bloomberg.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.


By the way, why would you assume the second amendment is so important to me, but not the person being stopped by police in terry stops?

I guess because you have indicated support and trust for the police force to be entrusted with a policy with a long history of being used to target and harass people of colour, while you have indicated no support or trust for the police force to be entrusted with a policy that might have the potential to impact gun owners negatively.


Right, the stop and frisk program in NY didn't appear to work as intended, and was phased out quite rapidly.

More than a decade is not quite rapidly.  Bloomberg started pushing the policy immediately after being elected in 2002.  His last year as mayor of New York in 2013, it was still being done at roughly 200% when compared to before he was elected.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?
« Reply #139 on: April 13, 2020, 10:59:09 PM »
No, it didn't.  Which makes the rest of your comment pointless.
Yes it did.

The way it was enacted and carried out completely ignored the "reasonable suspicion" requirement.
Quote from: EngagedToFIRE
  The problem is, you are just kind of making things up as you go along because you don't actually understand the topic one bit, which makes it very difficult to discuss with you.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/140.50
Glad you understand what the law requires.  It's a pity you seem to have that law confused with the policy of "Stop and Frisk", which, in turn, you seem to have confused with a "Terry Stop".

Policy and Legislation can quite often be at odds.  It is important to understand that Legislation takes precedent over Policy.  So it is commendable that you understand that NYPD is bound by the Legislation that you linked to.

Please note the vitally important part "when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal law,"

The "Stop and Frisk" policy, as implemented with the full support of Senior Officers and the Mayor, and as evidenced by the real world actions of the NYPD Officers involved, clearly did not require any such "reasonable suspicion", which is, in turn, evidenced by the random nature of the majority of the stops and the fact that approximately 75% of people searched had not committed any offence.  Also telling is the rapid increase of such searches in the absence of a commensurate rapid increase in crimes committed.  Surely even you must see that it's pretty hard to argue that there were suddenly orders of magnitude more "reasonable suspicions" being formed when there were not orders of magnitude more crimes being committed?

Now, if it is your contention that the "Stop and Frisk" policy and real world implementation of that policy adheres to your linked legislation please provide evidence in support of that claim because all the evidence I am aware of indicates it does not.  Do you perhaps have a certified copy of the "Stop and Frisk" policy that clearly states a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed must be formed prior to the search?  Perhaps you have certified memos of Senior Officers stating the same?  Perhaps recordings of same?  Any evidence at all that Officers were informed they must adhere to the legislation when carrying out these "Stop and Frisk" searches?

And as GuitarStv has already pointed out, the SCOTUS has not ruled on the "Stop and Frisk" policy as implemented by NYPD.  Please stop suggesting it has in a desperate attempt to continue to claim a "Stop and Frisk" search was a "Terry Stop".

I suggest, since you seem to be all about the legislation, you go by the current ruling of the NY District Courts, which ruled it NOT a "Terry Stop" and therefore unconstitutional.

Or you could keep blindly arguing for a policy you already admitted was flawed and desperately trying to claim it is something it has already been ruled by the Courts not to be in some vain attempt to avoid admitting it was a racistly implemented policy that you support.