Black America Steels Itself for Obama’s Departure and a Future Under Trump

a reply to: Martin75

Did you even read the article you linked??

As New York police abruptly moved away from the practice of stop-and-frisk toward the end of Kelly's tenure in 2013, the rate of homicide continued to decline as it had previously.

"To say that stop-and-frisk is the reason crime went down is wrong," said Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer who is now a sociologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Who's the idiot now?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Martin75

Ha, you knew I won the argument regarding the predominately WHITE mass shooters in this country who got their guns legally, so you don't want to play anymore. I get it.

Here's another one you lose. Stop and Frisk did not significantly lower gun violence.

FACT: Guns are found in less than 0.2 percent of stops. That is an unbelievably poor yield rate for such an intrusive, wasteful and humiliating police action.

www.nyclu.org...

Thanks for the source. I added it to the block list of propaganda sites. One only has to read it for a short period of time to understand they are pushing a political ideology under the cover of civil liberty.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm called paranoid for wanting guns to protect me and mine, and you are thee bastion of sanity for quoting white mass shootings.
I don't go for double standards.

a reply to: kaylaluv

If used correctly IT works.
I did read the article.
You just got caught running in circles.
I believe research over something someone said...see my earlier quote

a reply to: Martin75

Your claim is speculation. It did NOT work in New York.

a reply to: UKTruth

Can you debunk their facts?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Research it did...you must have a reading comprehension problem on top of your other issues.

a reply to: Martin75

The stop-and-frisk policy was ineffective because civilians were regularly stopped on inconsequential pretexts and vague justifications, such as that a person was moving furtively. The result was officers wasting their time with civilians who were not criminals, Fagan said

.

It did NOT work in New York, according to the article in your post. There are too many prejudiced cops out there. What makes you think just cuz Trump wants to do it all of a sudden all that will go away?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Can you debunk their facts?

I don't need to. Like all these organisations (on the right and left) that push political ideologies, you can spot them easily from the causes/cases they do not promote and the data they do not include. The site you listed is overtly biased. Left wing propaganda dressed up as something else used to work, but not any more.

Find a source (or use more than one) that takes both sides of the argument and assess from there. Links to liberal organisations cherry picking data, combined with you stating you are right because of it, is not significant.

a reply to: UKTruth

Ahh I see. So you can't debunk their facts.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Ahh I see. So you can't debunk their facts.

No, I am just not playing your liberal game of being narrowed down to debating data from one site as a barometer of right and wrong. When will you realise the world has moved on and those games are no longer working?

a reply to: UKTruth

Never...that is a fact

Can we just agree that;

A) Stop and frisk is unconstitutional because it presumes guilt
B) Obama was sucky, divisive president
C) We need to look within our own communities for solutions, not Washington
D) Masons, along with Russia, hacked my liquor supply


Thank you.

Happy New Year.

a reply to: kaylaluv

However, the general practice of stopping and frisking civilians is not unconstitutional, and research shows that doing so can help reduce crime — but only as part of a broader, clearly articulated strategy that targets real criminal activity.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Can we just agree that;

A) Stop and frisk is unconstitutional because it presumes guilt
B) Obama was sucky, divisive president
C) We need to look within our own communities for solutions, not Washington
D) Masons, along with Russia, hacked my liquor supply


Thank you.

Happy New Year.

Is that where my liquor is going?
Augustus you have some answering to do!

a reply to: Martin75

Which is NOT the way they did it in New York.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I have repeatedly stated "when used correctly ". That is the exact same quote I used before. You just want to argue nonsense.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: kaylaluv

I have repeatedly stated "when used correctly ". That is the exact same quote I used before. You just want to argue nonsense.

That is the nuance that liberal propaganda sites like the one linked fail to really point out. I can see why so many of those that consume it are misinformed.

a reply to: Martin75

Yeah and when guns are used correctly, they don't kill innocent people.

But guns are never always used correctly, are they? Why is that? Because there are always bad people to mess things up.

Same with Stop and Frisk. There will always be bad cops to mess things up.

Better to leave law-abiding gun owners alone and better to leave law-abiding minorities alone.

Stop and Frisk is a bad idea that has never worked well in real life.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad.