Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: George Whorewell on January 02, 2015, 04:36:55 PM
-
People forget about the Mayor's brilliant plan to stop crime by paying Ex-Cons lol. IMO this is what sparked the beginning of the rift between bozo Deblasio and the NYPD. I think 13 million dollars isn't nearly enough. The entire NYPD should be replaced by "interrupters". Based on early statistical indicators, crime would be reduced by 900% in most areas of the city.
http://nypost.com/2014/08/18/the-mayors-empty-anti-violence-plan/ (http://nypost.com/2014/08/18/the-mayors-empty-anti-violence-plan/)
The mayor’s empty ‘anti-violence’ plan
By Seth Barron
Mayor de Blasio just rolled out a $13 million, “evidence-based” plan to stop the wave of shootings around the city by hiring ex-gangbangers and felons to be “violence interrupters.”
One problem: The “evidence” doesn’t exist.
City officials and criminal-justice advocates claim that the “Save Our Streets” pilot program in Crown Heights “reduced shootings by 66 percent.”
This statistic was trumpeted at the mayor’s press conference last Wednesday and repeated in media accounts.But that number was apparently plucked out of thin air.
The Center for Court Innovation — which both implements and evaluates Save Our Streets — claims at best a 6 percent reduction in gun violence in the neighborhood . . . and admits that the drop “was not statistically significant.”
The philosophy behind Save Our Streets, according to the Center for Court Innovation’s Ife Charles, is that gun violence is a disease: “Quarantine an area, and then saturate the area with some sort of antibodies to help eradicate the violence.”
The “antibodies” in this case are ex-cons who are hired because they “know the streets, have been there and have credibility.”
These “interrupters” follow gang “beefs” on social media and rush to the scene of potential fights in order to defuse tensions.
Great . . . except there’s no evidence that paying convicted murderers, rapists and drug dealers to counsel young gangsters prevents violent acts.
The mayor calls Ife Charles, the coordinator of Save Our Streets, “the general of the army here, who has shown that this is the way forward.”
But Charles either lied or made a massive error when she announced that her own report showed “a 66 percent reduction in the shooting incidents that took place within our particular catchment area, once the program was implemented.”
In fact, the report — “Testing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence” — clearly states that “results showed that average monthly shooting rates in Crown Heights decreased by 6 percent from the pre to the post periods.”
Aside from the fact that the only data point offered as evidence for this “data-driven,” “evidence-based” program proves absolutely nothing, isn’t it a little weird for the city to put $13 million towards hiring experienced street criminals to advise apprentice street criminals?
City Councilman Jumaane Williams dismisses this objection, pointing out that computer companies hire hackers to advise them on security.
Of course, computer hackers know a lot about computer security, while violent street criminals know a lot about . . . committing crimes?
In the absence of hard data, it’s unclear how much good the “interrupters” do, especially because all of their successes are self-reported. Anecdotes about confrontations between gangs are cited, and the “interrupters” offer assessments about how well they did.
Unsurprisingly, the “interrupters” reported a 90 percent success rate, which the report at least invites us to “interpret with caution.”
The “interrupters” also make a point of not disclosing information to the NYPD in order to maintain their “cred.”
So if some young gang member is carrying a gun around, the “interrupters” will strive to convince him not to use it, but they won’t tell the cops.
The city’s spike in gun violence may leave liberals and policy types scratching their heads, but regular New Yorkers probably recall that we recently had a solid approach aimed at getting illegal guns off the street.
Stop-and-frisk was a robust and proven method that not only captured a lot of guns, but also made would-be gunslingers wary about carrying their pieces around in the first place.
Instead of cockamamie plans for what the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald calls a “social-service slush fund,” tried and true police work would address the gun problem directly.
Seth Barron runs City Council Watch, an investigative Web site focusing on local New York City politics.
-
Incredible how people make up statistics and then the media latches on to them and passes them off as fact.
This guy is dangerous.
-
Unsurprisingly, the “interrupters” reported a 90 percent success rate, which the report at least invites us to “interpret with caution.”
Archer77 read this and is trying to figure out what's the problem with this massively successful program. ::)
-
People forget about the Mayor's brilliant plan to stop crime by paying Ex-Cons lol. IMO this is what sparked the beginning of the rift between bozo Deblasio and the NYPD. I think 13 million dollars isn't nearly enough. The entire NYPD should be replaced by "interrupters". Based on early statistical indicators, crime would be reduced by 900% in most areas of the city.
http://nypost.com/2014/08/18/the-mayors-empty-anti-violence-plan/ (http://nypost.com/2014/08/18/the-mayors-empty-anti-violence-plan/)
The mayor’s empty ‘anti-violence’ plan
By Seth Barron
Mayor de Blasio just rolled out a $13 million, “evidence-based” plan to stop the wave of shootings around the city by hiring ex-gangbangers and felons to be “violence interrupters.”
One problem: The “evidence” doesn’t exist.
City officials and criminal-justice advocates claim that the “Save Our Streets” pilot program in Crown Heights “reduced shootings by 66 percent.”
This statistic was trumpeted at the mayor’s press conference last Wednesday and repeated in media accounts.But that number was apparently plucked out of thin air.
The Center for Court Innovation — which both implements and evaluates Save Our Streets — claims at best a 6 percent reduction in gun violence in the neighborhood . . . and admits that the drop “was not statistically significant.”
The philosophy behind Save Our Streets, according to the Center for Court Innovation’s Ife Charles, is that gun violence is a disease: “Quarantine an area, and then saturate the area with some sort of antibodies to help eradicate the violence.”
The “antibodies” in this case are ex-cons who are hired because they “know the streets, have been there and have credibility.”
These “interrupters” follow gang “beefs” on social media and rush to the scene of potential fights in order to defuse tensions.
Great . . . except there’s no evidence that paying convicted murderers, rapists and drug dealers to counsel young gangsters prevents violent acts.
The mayor calls Ife Charles, the coordinator of Save Our Streets, “the general of the army here, who has shown that this is the way forward.”
But Charles either lied or made a massive error when she announced that her own report showed “a 66 percent reduction in the shooting incidents that took place within our particular catchment area, once the program was implemented.”
In fact, the report — “Testing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence” — clearly states that “results showed that average monthly shooting rates in Crown Heights decreased by 6 percent from the pre to the post periods.”
Aside from the fact that the only data point offered as evidence for this “data-driven,” “evidence-based” program proves absolutely nothing, isn’t it a little weird for the city to put $13 million towards hiring experienced street criminals to advise apprentice street criminals?
City Councilman Jumaane Williams dismisses this objection, pointing out that computer companies hire hackers to advise them on security.
Of course, computer hackers know a lot about computer security, while violent street criminals know a lot about . . . committing crimes?
In the absence of hard data, it’s unclear how much good the “interrupters” do, especially because all of their successes are self-reported. Anecdotes about confrontations between gangs are cited, and the “interrupters” offer assessments about how well they did.
Unsurprisingly, the “interrupters” reported a 90 percent success rate, which the report at least invites us to “interpret with caution.”
The “interrupters” also make a point of not disclosing information to the NYPD in order to maintain their “cred.”
So if some young gang member is carrying a gun around, the “interrupters” will strive to convince him not to use it, but they won’t tell the cops.
The city’s spike in gun violence may leave liberals and policy types scratching their heads, but regular New Yorkers probably recall that we recently had a solid approach aimed at getting illegal guns off the street.
Stop-and-frisk was a robust and proven method that not only captured a lot of guns, but also made would-be gunslingers wary about carrying their pieces around in the first place.
Instead of cockamamie plans for what the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald calls a “social-service slush fund,” tried and true police work would address the gun problem directly.
Seth Barron runs City Council Watch, an investigative Web site focusing on local New York City politics.
Hahahaha, "evidence based" as in science? Like evidence based global warming..lmao
-
Incredible how people make up statistics and then the media latches on to them and passes them off as fact.
This guy is dangerous.
The gun control sfuff is the absolute worst and most frustrating when it comes to this.
-
Simple question is who would you want to protect your self, family, and property? The protesters or the NYC police. It's clear as day that these protesters are thugs or thug sympathizers that condone rioting, disrespect, and murderers. Sad day in America that these people are given a podium to speak.
-
Incredible how people make up statistics and then the media latches on to them and passes them off as fact.
This guy is dangerous.
As Dangerous as Ebola?
Chicken little much?
-
As Dangerous as Ebola?
Chicken little much?
Not nearly as dangerous as Ebola, which doesn't have squat to do with de Blasio's relationship with the NYPD, embracing false statistics, throwing cops under the bus, etc.
Head in the sand much?
-
Not nearly as dangerous as Ebola, which doesn't have squat to do with de Blasio's relationship with the NYPD, embracing false statistics, throwing cops under the bus, etc.
Head in the sand much?
same thought process you had with ebola as it pertains to the US. You hit us with "the sky is falling" routine and when i said "its not going to be what fox news is telling you" and you told me " you have your head in the sand"....and 6 months later, 2 people died on US soil...2
so im saying all the "hes dangerous" talk could be more of the same.
I personally dont think anything drastic will come of this whole dick measuring contest.
-
same thought process you had with ebola as it pertains to the US. You hit us with "the sky is falling" routine and when i said "its not going to be what fox news is telling you" and you told me " you have your head in the sand"....and 6 months later, 2 people died on US soil...2
so im saying all the "hes dangerous" talk could be more of the same.
I personally dont think anything drastic will come of this whole dick measuring contest.
This is about as accurate as the "statistics" relied on by de Blasio. All I ever said about Ebola was I was very concerned. But don't let the facts get in the way or anything. And again, this doesn't have a thing to do with de Blasio.