Stop and Frisk in Chicago - an idea

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Yes you are. The second amendment is there for a reason and I believe in it wholeheartedly. And it has been proven that gun control doesn't save lives. London banned ALL firearms and just passed New York city for per capita murder rate. And its all being done with knives. So, now they want to ban knives. Banning doesn't work. Never has, never will. Focusing on the people who use the tools rather than the tools themselves is the only answer.

sure

gun control does not save lives?
none. not even one

do you think there would be more murders if they had guns as well as knives??

dont mistake me posting this for me wanting guns banned. i dont

just trying to create a flip side to your stop and frisk proposal

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TinySickTears

If just one life was saved, the inconvenience to the "frisked" was worth it. It's analogous to TSA screening everyone at the airport. Inconvenient, but worth it.

cool
by that logic if just one life was saved then guns being banned would be wort it??

correct

Why be so limited in your response? Taking away cars would save a lot more lives than taking away guns would.

"If it saves one life its worth it" is not the point. People are stopped for no reason every day. Everyone knows it. Gripe all you want but that is how it is. Put it to good use.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

It doesn't matter what I think about it. It happens. You want to make an issue out of the legality, I gave examples of the legality making no difference in the outcome. People in this country are stopped for no reason all the time. It happens. Why not put it to good use for once?

it matters to me. thats why i asked

you started a thread on this so i would like your opinions on the discussion

you are not cool with sobriety check points?
is that correct?

but you are cool with stop and frisk?

i just understand

dodge it by saying it dont matter what you think but it does for this discussion and even if you dodge it its pretty clear what you think.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Why be so limited in your response? Taking away cars would save a lot more lives than taking away guns would.

"If it saves one life its worth it" is not the point. People are stopped for no reason every day. Everyone knows it. Gripe all you want but that is how it is. Put it to good use.

youre the one griping about the sobriety checkpoints.
dont bother me

they set them up locally like twice a year. everyone knows this.
ive been stopped in one once in the last like 10 years.

im not bothered by it.

you are

and yes taking away cars would save more lives.

so lets do it

other dude said about the TSA checks that if it saves even 1 life its worth it

so lets take away everything and put people in plastic bubbles

i will ask again though

are you for stop and frisk but opposed to sobriety checks?

its a simple question.

just want you to answer even though i already know

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Vroomfondel

i like how even in your hypothetical scenario, blacks still had the most weapons and ok to stop and frisk.

so your bias is already showing, even hypothetically.
despite stop and frisk data showing the 90% of blacks stopped vs 10% whites 82% blacks innocent, 75% whites had weapon/contraband.

Anything to back your BS up?


Not sure why I even asked, because all you do is throw snip at the wall and hope some one is dumb enough to believe you!

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Why be so limited in your response? Taking away cars would save a lot more lives than taking away guns would.

"If it saves one life its worth it" is not the point. People are stopped for no reason every day. Everyone knows it. Gripe all you want but that is how it is. Put it to good use.

youre the one griping about the sobriety checkpoints.
dont bother me

they set them up locally like twice a year. everyone knows this.
ive been stopped in one once in the last like 10 years.

im not bothered by it.

you are

and yes taking away cars would save more lives.

so lets do it

other dude said about the TSA checks that if it saves even 1 life its worth it

so lets take away everything and put people in plastic bubbles

i will ask again though

are you for stop and frisk but opposed to sobriety checks?

its a simple question.

just want you to answer even though i already know

I am not in favor of sobriety checkpoints or stop and frisk. I am not in favor of getting searched every time I go to a concert. I am not in favor of getting felt up every time I want to fly somewhere. But people get searched when they go to a concert because of the number of incidents that happen at concerts. People are felt up at airports because of the number of events that happened involving airplanes. And that is exactly my point. Law enforcement is using real life numbers of incident to determine how they try to prevent similar incidents in the future. That is exactly the point of this thread.

You post tons of stats showing that on average 90% of the people stopped and frisked are innocent. I would say thats about right in New York. In Chicago I think the rate will be a bit higher, but even if its the same thats alright. That means there are less illegal weapons on the streets today than there were yesterday. And it also means we now have some real life numbers that show who was carrying them which points us in the direction we should go next.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

i just dont agree

and i didnt post a ton of stats

i posted the same link twice and like 5 snippets from the top of the article

but cool
youre not for stop and frisk but you think they should stop and frisk

ok

we see where each other stands. good talk. i dont agree

good luck with your campaign

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You post tons of stats showing that on average 90% of the people stopped and frisked are innocent. I would say thats about right in New York. In Chicago I think the rate will be a bit higher, but even if its the same thats alright.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

The problem with banning guns has always been and will always be that guns will be taken away from law abiding citizens while criminals will most likely keep theirs. The weakness of gun control is that it fails to target the people that are the problem. By definition, only law abiding citizens will abide by a gun control law. Criminals don't care if its illegal or not. That is why we call them criminals.

My plan gives us at least a small chance at identifying the problem people as opposed to a blanket law that will catch far more innocent people than guilty.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You post tons of stats showing that on average 90% of the people stopped and frisked are innocent. I would say thats about right in New York. In Chicago I think the rate will be a bit higher, but even if its the same thats alright.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Says the person who supports gun control...…….

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You post tons of stats showing that on average 90% of the people stopped and frisked are innocent. I would say thats about right in New York. In Chicago I think the rate will be a bit higher, but even if its the same thats alright.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

That is one of my favorite quotes and I believe it with all my heart. But we have already given up that essential liberty. We should at least be able to reap the benefits of its sacrifice.

You know what, I am sorry I said anything.

Its more fun to talk about the shocking numbers of deaths in Chicago than it is to try to find a solution. People are stopped for no reason every single day in this country. Back in the 50's it was, "I'm sorry Sir, your tail light was out. It appears to be working now though. You should have that checked out. But, since we're already stopped why don't you give me your drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance..." Things haven't improved from there.

The problem with just about any proposed solution in Chicago is that it either violates the rights of innocent people or it unfairly targets minorities. My plan doesn't violate the rights of innocent people any more than they already have been, just in a slightly different way. It does, however, eliminate the unfair racial aspect. It places the responsibility for the searches on the perpetrators - where it belongs. That, in turn, may actually prevent a much more serious violation of people's rights in the form of blanket gun control laws. But hey, who cares...

I apologize for the wasted bandwidth.

The world would be safer if we all did our part, I'm doing mine.

I've personally implemented a stop and frisk checkpoint at the dancer entrance to my local gentleman's club.

I think it's working out nicely.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You know what, I am sorry I said anything.



I apologize for the wasted bandwidth.

its fine

im sure a bunch of people will rush to agree with you and give you that electronic pat on the back for the next one

originally posted by: MisterSpock
The world would be safer if we all did our part, I'm doing mine.

I've personally implemented a stop and frisk checkpoint at the dancer entrance to my local gentleman's club.

I think it's working out nicely.

Make sure you have all your shots!

a reply to: seeker1963

I have all my shots, even wear my collar and tags when I'm out in public.

It's all on the up and up.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional!

That is all that needs to be said.

P

Nope it’s not unconstitutional . That policy happens every day in America. But it does violate the fourth amendment if you target specific minorities .

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I would still say that it amounts to the police engaging in extraconstitutional thuggery. Randomly rolling up on a citizen and initiating a search is no different than specifically targeting a citizen for a search without evidence preceeding cause for the search.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I would still say that it amounts to the police engaging in extraconstitutional thuggery. Randomly rolling up on a citizen and initiating a search is no different than specifically targeting a citizen for a search without evidence preceeding cause for the search.

What about DUI checkpoints, those seem to skirt the constitution based on vehicle operation. What if stop and frisk was only at "optional" places like mass transit platforms/entrances?

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I would still say that it amounts to the police engaging in extraconstitutional thuggery. Randomly rolling up on a citizen and initiating a search is no different than specifically targeting a citizen for a search without evidence preceeding cause for the search.

What about DUI checkpoints, those seem to skirt the constitution based on vehicle operation. What if stop and frisk was only at "optional" places like mass transit platforms/entrances?

Dude, I live in PA. If a cop pulls you over for a burnt out turn signal? They can pull you and every passenger out of the car and search everyone! For their safety of course. However if they find you in possession over a traffic infraction even though you were a passenger? MONEY FOR THE STATE!