Black Brunch....hahhah have you guys heard about these retards yet?

[andreisdaman]

what about African immigrants and Indians etc who come here and do fine?

Many of those are people who are EDUCATED.....the poor can't come here unless they are brought over by a relative....the smart ones come here first......many of those guys you see selling newspapers at newsstands were pharmacists, lawyers, etc in their own country.....I've had many a conversation with them.....when you are educated you have thinking skills and are organized..often times the poor don't have this capacity

[OzmO]

No, it suggests that it ISN'T a program that gets guns off the streets despite the political brass/NYPD officials repeatedly claiming it that's what it does. Whether or not the hidden agenda was to go after pot carriers was not an argument I was making, just that it is more effective at doing that than it's stated goal.

For clarification, what I found ridiculous was you asking for proof(!) of a hidden agenda and then stating that what you considered proof was an explicit confirmation of said "hidden agenda"(!).

I was being facetious when asking for proof because obviously there wasn't any.  Sorry,  spoken word gets lost in translation at times when converted to written word.

What's the charge for under an ounce possession in New York?  If its a Ticket, then its moot.

Except "targeting" isn't this issue...and I've REPEATEDLY said that. You continue to try to conflate OVERPOLICING with any type of policing at all!

Ok so what's the/your definition of over policing?

And? How does that change the fact that it's overpolicing of a particular segment of the community? How does it change the fact that it results in more arrests not related to gun charges within that segment?

If there is a high rate of violence in a particular segment of the community wouldn't it be prudent to focus on that segment?  

Why would the focus be on violence when drug crimes are behind most incarcerations in America? 

Do you think the purpose of stop and frisk was to go after drugs or guns?  It seems obvious it was to go for guns, NOT drugs.  however, it failed and there was a different result

Yes , it does because there is still a huge disparity in incarceration rates between races (which you continue to try to ignore)

I am not trying to ignore it, i am trying to figure out why.  

Which it didn't do. Whites using at a greater level was never the point of the argument. It may have jumped out at you and you may continue to harp on it, but the very clear point of the argument was the disparity in incarceration rates. Whether or not rates are higher among whites or the same doesn't weaken or change the argument.

You used it as part of your argument as to why it isn't right.  That part is untrue.  

So, this is what you take contention with?  Two minor non-issues? The first one, even if you're correct, not changing my argument in the slightest and the second, not even an argument I made?

No Al, those are factors of the 2 points you have made.  WE, still are not talking about why these rates are high and why there is over-policing.  

All you said is the rates are high and pointed to 2 things.
1.  Drug incarceration rates
2.  A failed program


So here's the question we are not answering:

Why do police feel they need to "over-police" (I need to know your definition of it) neighbor hoods with mostly blacks or latinos?

I suspect, speculate etc. that its becuase those areas can be more dangerous due to poverty rates that result in more drug traffic, theft, muggings, murder, gang violence etc.  

[Al Doggity]

I was being facetious when asking for proof because obviously there wasn't any.  Sorry,  spoken word gets lost in translation at times when converted to written word.

What's the charge for under an ounce possession in New York?  If its a Ticket, then its moot.

Marijuana possession is the leading reason behind arrests in NYC. And even if it was "just' a ticket, and even if that was the most common penalty, why would that be moot?

Ok so what's the/your definition of over policing?

500,000 stops to recover  700 guns.

If there is a high rate of violence in a particular segment of the community wouldn't it be prudent to focus on that segment?  

Indiscriminately? NO. Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile that still leaves less than a 10% chance of finding a misdemeanor. NO.

Do you think the purpose of stop and frisk was to go after drugs or guns?  It seems obvious it was to go for guns, NOT drugs.  however, it failed and there was a different result

How is that obvious?? NYC officials have touted the "broken window" policy for decades, so it's not a stretch to believe that the NYPD would use a program like this to go after smaller crimes. It's actually right in line. On top of that, the marijuana arrests generate plenty of money for the city via federal funding and fines. But the point was not whether or not there is an ulterior motive to the program, but that the program is overbroad and ineffective.

I am not trying to ignore it, i am trying to figure out why.  

You haven't asked any questions or even offered up any debate on that RELEVANT stat.

No Al, those are factors of the 2 points you have made.  WE, still are not talking about why these rates are high and why there is over-policing.  

They literally aren't.

All you said is the rates are high and pointed to 2 things.
1.  Drug incarceration rates
2.  A failed program

Those are massive examples  

So here's the question we are not answering:
Why do police feel they need to "over-police" (I need to know your definition of it) neighbor hoods with mostly blacks or latinos?

I suspect, speculate etc. that its becuase those areas can be more dangerous due to poverty rates that result in more drug traffic, theft, muggings, murder, gang violence etc.  

Whuh? Are we actually relevant points now?

First and foremost, money. Most of what any  big city police department does is generate revenue. Some of that is through fines and some of that is through federal funding through incarceration.  Violent crime rates and drug arrest for everything aside from marijuana have PLUMMETED over the last 20-30 years but marijuana arrest rates skyrocketed.

The chart below is from a report on California marijuana convictions up through 2010.
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Misdemeanor_marijuana_arrests.pdf

Secondly, like you just said in your last post, political appearances. You keep making these suggestions that if there is some type of motive or whatever that it doesn't qualify as over-policing. Just because there is a motive doesn't mean that it is justified.

As to how I define "over-policing" - it's a level of police activity that is not statistically justified by the level of crime it solves or prevents.

[OzmO]

Marijuana possession is the leading reason behind arrests in NYC. And even if it was "just' a ticket, and even if that was the most common penalty, why would that be moot?

Because its an infraction, just like a speeding ticket.

500,000 stops to recover  700 guns.

Would it be over policing if they got more guns?

Indiscriminately? NO. Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile that still leaves less than a 10% chance of finding a misdemeanor. NO.

That's because the program failed to get the "guns" it thought it could.  You are once again, drawing conclusions about over policing based on the results of a failed program.

And they didn't "Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile".  They targeted specific precincts that had 80-90% black and Latino residents.  Why?  Was it because of the crime rates in those precincts or was it because there more blacks and Latinos there?  If the latter is the case, then why target 2 precincts with only 50% blacks and Latinos?  

You are doing exactly what i have been saying you were doing when you suggested that pulling guns off the streets wasn't the purpose of the program, but instead to incriminate blacks and Latinos.

How is that obvious?? NYC officials have touted the "broken window" policy for decades, so it's not a stretch to believe that the NYPD would use a program like this to go after smaller crimes. It's actually right in line. On top of that, the marijuana arrests generate plenty of money for the city via federal funding and fines. But the point was not whether or not there is an ulterior motive to the program, but that the program is overbroad and ineffective.

A couple of points and issues here:

According to wiki:

The program’s purpose is to remove guns off the street before they are used in more serious crimes. In the context of this allegory, the NYPD aims to fix the broken windows before the squatters get in

Speculating that they are doing to increase revenue is common.  I think it every time i see a traffic cop with a radar gun.

But according to this article, its been lowering crime.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33230464/#.VLQ8QSvF98F

You haven't asked any questions or even offered up any debate on that RELEVANT stat.

That's what the rest of my post was about.

They literally aren't.

Those are massive examples  

Those are the examples you provided not me.

Whuh? Are we actually relevant points now?

First and foremost, money. Most of what any  big city police department does is generate revenue. Some of that is through fines and some of that is through federal funding through incarceration.  Violent crime rates and drug arrest for everything aside from marijuana have PLUMMETED over the last 20-30 years but marijuana arrest rates skyrocketed.

The chart below is from a report on California marijuana convictions up through 2010.
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Misdemeanor_marijuana_arrests.pdf

I get why you are tying pot to this, but the issue in my mind isn't pot. ...Its violence, something YOU AL haven't addressed.

Secondly, like you just said in your last post, political appearances. You keep making these suggestions that if there is some type of motive or whatever that it doesn't qualify as over-policing. Just because there is a motive doesn't mean that it is justified.

I can agree with that.  At the same time, just because the result are a failure it doesn't mean the reasons for doing it was something else.

As to how I define "over-policing" - it's a level of police activity that is not statistically justified by the level of crime it solves or prevents.

According to that article it does.  

[Soul Crusher]

Many of those are people who are EDUCATED.....the poor can't come here unless they are brought over by a relative....the smart ones come here first......many of those guys you see selling newspapers at newsstands were pharmacists, lawyers, etc in their own country.....I've had many a conversation with them.....when you are educated you have thinking skills and are organized..often times the poor don't have this capacity

We have free k - 12 - that's not enough? 

[Al Doggity]

Because its an infraction, just like a speeding ticket.

And? You're still being penalized by police.

Would it be over policing if they got more guns?

It would be less of a blatant case of over-policing if the seizure rate was above .5% of the stops.
 

That's because the program failed to get the "guns" it thought it could.  You are once again, drawing conclusions about over policing based on the results of a failed program.

And they didn't "Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile".  They targeted specific precincts that had 80-90% black and Latino residents.  Why?  Was it because of the crime rates in those precincts or was it because there more blacks and Latinos there?  If the latter is the case, then why target 2 precincts with only 50% blacks and Latinos?  
You are doing exactly what i have been saying you were doing when you suggested that pulling guns off the streets wasn't the purpose of the program, but instead to incriminate blacks and Latinos.

The conviction rate speaks for itself.

A couple of points and issues here:

According to wiki:

The program’s purpose is to remove guns off the street before they are used in more serious crimes. In the context of this allegory, the NYPD aims to fix the broken windows before the squatters get in

Speculating that they are doing to increase revenue is common.  I think it every time i see a traffic cop with a radar gun.

But according to this article, its been lowering crime.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33230464/#.VLQ8QSvF98F

No, the NYPD officials interviewed in that story said it does.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Within the article:

David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on street stops, said few searches yield weapons or drugs. And the more people are searched, the more innocent people are hassled.
"The hit rate goes down because you're being less selective about how you're doing this. That has a cost. It's not free," Harris said.


Then:
Stop-and-Frisk Didn't Make New York Safer
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/stop-and-frisk-didnt-make-new-york-safer/359666/

Mayor Bloomberg’s efficiency arguments about stop-and-frisk are wrong, as well as irrelevant.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/new_york_s_stop_and_frisk_policy_is_neither_effective_nor_constitutional.html

Bloomberg and Kelly Aren’t Going to Like the Latest Research on Stop-and-Frisk
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/bloomberg-wont-like-new-stop-and-frisk-research.html

Those are the examples you provided not me.

And like I said, they are MASSIVE examples.

I get why you are tying pot to this, but the issue in my mind isn't pot. ...Its violence, something YOU AL haven't addressed.

In what capacity would you like this addressed?! Like I said previously, violent crime has been steadily declining for the past 25 years nationally and drug related offenses are the number one reason for incarcerations nationally. So why would I think the issue was the thing that affected fewer people? What specifically do you want addressed. Whether or not I feel that higher crime areas warrant a larger police presence. Of course. I've said that. Do they warrant police having carte blanche to behave however they please. Should people cede their civil liberties because of their zip code. Of course not!
 

I can agree with that.  At the same time, just because the result are a failure it doesn't mean the reasons for doing it was something else.

So, even taking away the motive, it still results in a very clear case of overpolicing.

According to that article it does.  

That article doesn't say that.

[OzmO]

And? You're still being penalized by police.

Yeah, and you can add that to the plethora of other petty BS we get cited for.  So what?

It would be less of a blatant case of over-policing if the seizure rate was above .5% of the stops.
 

So because it failed its over policing?

You can't have it both ways.

It has to be over policing regardless of the outcome.

The conviction rate speaks for itself.

It only says that in one area it didn't.  

No, the NYPD officials interviewed in that story said it does.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Within the article:

David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on street stops, said few searches yield weapons or drugs. And the more people are searched, the more innocent people are hassled.
"The hit rate goes down because you're being less selective about how you're doing this. That has a cost. It's not free," Harris said.


Then:
Stop-and-Frisk Didn't Make New York Safer
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/stop-and-frisk-didnt-make-new-york-safer/359666/

Mayor Bloomberg’s efficiency arguments about stop-and-frisk are wrong, as well as irrelevant.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/new_york_s_stop_and_frisk_policy_is_neither_effective_nor_constitutional.html

Bloomberg and Kelly Aren’t Going to Like the Latest Research on Stop-and-Frisk
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/bloomberg-wont-like-new-stop-and-frisk-research.html

That article doesn't say that.

from the article:

Police in major U.S. cities stop and question more than a million people each year — a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Most are black and Hispanic men. Many are frisked, and nearly all are innocent of any crime, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.
And the numbers are rising at the same time crime rates are dropping.[/u]

And like I said, they are MASSIVE examples.

And flawed.

In what capacity would you like this addressed?! Like I said previously, violent crime has been steadily declining for the past 25 years nationally and drug related offenses are the number one reason for incarcerations nationally. So why would I think the issue was the thing that affected fewer people? What specifically do you want addressed. Whether or not I feel that higher crime areas warrant a larger police presence. Of course. I've said that. Do they warrant police having carte blanche to behave however they please. Should people cede their civil liberties because of their zip code. Of course not!

So because violent crimes rates are dropping nationally its now safe to walk 66th avenue of Oakland?  lol

It seems like you are trying to tie over-policing only to drugs and doing you best to ignore the violent crime aspect in those areas.

Your dismissive minimizing in the above paragraph shows it.

So, even taking away the motive, it still results in a very clear case of overpolicing.

I don't think so when you factor in the violent crime aspect into it.  

But of course, that doesn't matter does it because you are still pissed because too many black and Latinos are getting citations for pot possession.  

[Al Doggity]

So because it failed its over policing?

You can't have it both ways.

It has to be over policing regardless of the outcome.

Me on page 12 :
 It's a sign that the program, as it has operated, it way too broad, ignoring the fact that many people (myself included)  consider it inherently unconstitutional.

Your response:
And how is it way to broad and what does some people's objection because they think it's unconstitutional have anything to do with it?

from the article:

Police in major U.S. cities stop and question more than a million people each year — a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Most are black and Hispanic men. Many are frisked, and nearly all are innocent of any crime, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.
And the numbers are rising at the same time crime rates are dropping.[/u]

"The numbers rising at the same time crime is dropping" =/="the program is causing crime to drop".
The national decline in violent crime preceded-by years- the institution of s&f-like programs in most large cities.

Additionally, after DiBlasio was elected, s&f in NYC was scaled back drastically and crime continued to decline.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nypd-analysis-stop-and-frisk-activity-down-as-serious-crime-declines-1.9659026

The new police commissioner had this to say:

"The amount of medicine was totally out of proportion to the illness," Bratton told an audience of law professors, students and journalists, adding that there were "700,000 stop-question-and-frisks in this city even as crime was going down year after year."

Bratton said he didn't agree with the argument that crime was going down because of the stop-and-frisk police tactic.

So because violent crimes rates are dropping nationally its now safe to walk 66th avenue of Oakland?  lol

It seems like you are trying to tie over-policing only to drugs and doing you best to ignore the violent crime aspect in those areas.

Your dismissive minimizing in the above paragraph shows it.

And you stay doing this; trying to take one point in a nuanced argument and reduce it down to the entirety of the argument. In the the very text you quoted from me I say that higher crime areas do warrant a larger police presence. The way these programs have operated is excessive. There's no debating that. Nationally, most law enforcement agencies are more focused on drug prosecution. There's no debating that either.

[andreisdaman]

We have free k - 12 - that's not enough? 

it obviously wasn't enough for you

[Soul Crusher]

it obviously wasn't enough for you

I'm not the one begging for more free shit like the Black (No tip for the waiter) Brunch crowd

[andreisdaman]

I'm not the one begging for more free shit like the Black (No tip for the waiter) Brunch crowd

who really cares about them?...they in no way represent black people......they only seem to represent blacks in your mind

[Soul Crusher]

who really cares about them?...they in no way represent black people......they only seem to represent blacks in your mind

Maybe there should be White Brunch and people start crashing the local Red Lobster and Waffle House 

[andreisdaman]

Maybe there should be White Brunch and people start crashing the local Red Lobster and Waffle House 

 ...that might be funny

[OzmO]

Me on page 12 :
 It's a sign that the program, as it has operated, it way too broad, ignoring the fact that many people (myself included)  consider it inherently unconstitutional.

Your response:
And how is it way to broad and what does some people's objection because they think it's unconstitutional have anything to do with it?

My question was  would it be over policing if it got more guns?

You are confusing intentions/purpose with results.

And my first comment to yours was trying to find out what you meant by broad.

"The numbers rising at the same time crime is dropping" =/="the program is causing crime to drop".
The national decline in violent crime preceded-by years- the institution of s&f-like programs in most large cities.

Additionally, after DiBlasio was elected, s&f in NYC was scaled back drastically and crime continued to decline.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nypd-analysis-stop-and-frisk-activity-down-as-serious-crime-declines-1.9659026

The new police commissioner had this to say:

"The amount of medicine was totally out of proportion to the illness," Bratton told an audience of law professors, students and journalists, adding that there were "700,000 stop-question-and-frisks in this city even as crime was going down year after year."

Bratton said he didn't agree with the argument that crime was going down because of the stop-and-frisk police tactic.

You can argue weather or not it is by showing quotes of peeps who don't think so, but there other peeps who do.  So what?  

And you stay doing this; trying to take one point in a nuanced argument and reduce it down to the entirety of the argument. In the the very text you quoted from me I say that higher crime areas do warrant a larger police presence. The way these programs have operated is excessive. There's no debating that. Nationally, most law enforcement agencies are more focused on drug prosecution. There's no debating that either.

How have they been excessive?  Because they didn't get the anticipated result?  While stop and frisk is borders constitutional rights, frankly in high crime areas something needs to be done.  Don't know if i would say this is the right thing.  An argument might be made that 5 years of S & F have contributed to the 4% drop in crime.  Who knows.

Do you live in a big city?

I've lived near one most of my life.  Would you feel safe if your girl friend walked home through east LA, 30th Ave in Oakland, Hunters Point in SF, 10th street in Richmond?  I would have little worry if mine walked through most of the neighborhoods in the city i live in.

You are dodging the issue of violence and theft in these areas.  You are trying to focus your argument on Drugs, when drugs are something that will always be present in any community.

The issues aren't solely drugs.  The issues are inner city gang violence, rape, murder, and theft, some of which are because of drugs.

So as far as i am concerned, cops need to be in those areas more, and i don't care if those areas are white, black or green.  If that's over policing, then its justified.


About 15 years ago on Richmond, CA there was black neighborhood off of hill top drive and Shane st.  The neighborhood over the years to that point slowly became a center for drugs sales.  Groups of people would hang around on many of the street corners and sell drugs or harass people who drove in to the neighborhood.  There was all kinds of theft violence issues.   The Richmond police wouldn't even go in it much. I know this because i did work in and around the area.  

The home owners got together and working with the police hired a security force that in a matter of months cleaned up the neighborhood making it far safer for everyone.  

Is that over policing? Or is it ok because they got the right result?

Another thing i see around the bay area is opening Police sub stations near bad neighborhoods.  Is that over policing?

These things were needed.  

Another thing i would ask you.....Is stop and Frisk your only example?  Are there more?

[Al Doggity]

My question was  would it be over policing if it got more guns?

You are confusing intentions/purpose with results.

And my first comment to yours was trying to find out what you meant by broad.

No, you just seem to have a problem following an argument with more than one point.

The program is a shitty program anyway. As I had already said, it's a violation of civil liberties. But the fact that even beyond it being inherently shitty, it doesn't even catch criminals makes it an even more blatant case of overpolicing.

You can argue weather or not it is by showing quotes of peeps who don't think so, but there other peeps who do.  So what?  

I can argue that it's not by showing that the drop in crime preceded the program and that crime continues to drop even when the program is scaled back. Within that argument, I can point out that NYPD officials  aren't even in agreement with what you incorrectly claimed that article stated.

So as far as i am concerned, cops need to be in those areas more, and i don't care if those areas are white, black or green.  If that's over policing, then its justified.

And that is your whole argument: any level of policing in a "high crime" area- no matter how excessive- is justified and in your mind there's no such thing as over-policing. It's just a matter of semantics.  At least you've finally just said it plainly.  I've said over and over that of course higher crime areas should have a stronger police presence, but you've repeatedly tried to turn that into "So any police presence at all is over-policing?" There are areas in-between. When police are hassling innocent citizens at a 9:1 ratio then that's overpolicing. You acknowledge the program is a failure, but it's just an "oopsie" on the NYPDs part, so no biggie.  

[OzmO]

No, you just seem to have a problem following an argument with more than one point.

The program is a shitty program anyway. As I had already said, it's a violation of civil liberties. But the fact that even beyond it being inherently shitty, it doesn't even catch criminals makes it an even more blatant case of overpolicing.

I can see your point.  I just have an issue with calling it over policing because of the result.  Another angle to it might be that fact that it continued for years with shitty results which based on your definition of over-policing fits.

I can argue that it's not by showing that the drop in crime preceded the program and that crime continues to drop even when the program is scaled back. Within that argument, I can point out that NYPD officials  aren't even in agreement with what you incorrectly claimed that article stated.

That's what the article said.  I am only pasting what the article said.

And that is your whole argument: any level of policing in a "high crime" area- no matter how excessive- is justified and in your mind there's no such thing as over-policing. It's just a matter of semantics.  At least you've finally just said it plainly.  I've said over and over that of course higher crime areas should have a stronger police presence, but you've repeatedly tried to turn that into "So any police presence at all is over-policing?"

no, not at all.  I am glad you can admit that certain neighborhoods need more police presence.  That's been my thought from the start of this.   

There are areas in-between. When police are hassling innocent citizens at a 9:1 ratio then that's overpolicing. You acknowledge the program is a failure, but it's just an "oopsie" on the NYPDs part, so no biggie.  

Ok, so you think it is, and i am not so sure it is.

Do you have other examples of over policing as per your definition?

And was the example i gave of Richmond over policing in your mind?

[Al Doggity]

I can see your point.  I just have an issue with calling it over policing because of the result.  Another angle to it might be that fact that it continued for years with shitty results which based on your definition of over-policing fits.

It's not the results, it's the process.

That's what the article said.  I am only pasting what the article said.

You said "according to the article, it's been lowering crime." That's not what the article said. It said that crime had been going down while the program was in place.

no, not at all.  I am glad you can admit that certain neighborhoods need more police presence.  That's been my thought from the start of this.

   
Which seems curious because I've said it several times and even in my first post responding to you said that even without distortions, crime rates are higher within the black community. Right from the beginning and in every subsequent post I have been very clear about my issue being the huge disparity in enforcement and sentencing.

Ok, so you think it is, and i am not so sure it is.

Do you have other examples of over policing as per your definition?

And was the example i gave of Richmond over policing in your mind?

That example was presented completely anecdotally. There was no comparison in the crime rates, before and after, no description of the police's methods, how many were depolyed, the scope of the operation, etc. It was basically- this area had a lot of crime, the police got involved, now it's gone. The examples I gave were based on hard numbers. Once again, you're trying to twist my point into "any policing is bad policing", while the examples I gave were based on hard numbers: drastic disparities and overbroad programs.


Nost departments don't even keep stats. I believe NY only started after a few lawsuits. So anything else would be even more open to interpretation.



[/quote]

[OzmO]

It's not the results, it's the process.

You said "according to the article, it's been lowering crime." That's not what the article said. It said that crime had been going down while the program was in place.


   
Which seems curious because I've said it several times and even in my first post responding to you said that even without distortions, crime rates are higher within the black community. Right from the beginning and in every subsequent post I have been very clear about my issue being the huge disparity in enforcement and sentencing.

You have avoided it quite a bit, instead trying to focus on drugs.  But w/e

That example was presented completely anecdotally. There was no comparison in the crime rates, before and after, no description of the police's methods, how many were depolyed, the scope of the operation, etc. It was basically- this area had a lot of crime, the police got involved, now it's gone. The examples I gave were based on hard numbers. Once again, you're trying to twist my point into "any policing is bad policing", while the examples I gave were based on hard numbers: drastic disparities and overbroad programs.



Nost departments don't even keep stats. I believe NY only started after a few lawsuits. So anything else would be even more open to interpretation.

I am not trying to twist anything.  I'm asking you to provide other example of over policing.  Can you do that? 

Regarding Richmond.  I was giving you a personal first hand experience.  I was there when you could barely drive through without being harassed and I have been through since and its like it was.  I found out what happened from a home owner.

Based on what i wrote and the information you have do you thin its over policing?
 

[Al Doggity]

You have avoided it quite a bit, instead trying to focus on drugs.  But w/e

Then ask me a specific question or make a specific observation. If violent crime is the bigger problem, what data do you have to back that up?
As I have said three times, I have talked more about drugs because a)it is the focus of most police departments nationally, b)the numbers affect more people and c)there is plenty of comprehensive data available.

Regarding Richmond.  I was giving you a personal first hand experience.  I was there when you could barely drive through without being harassed and I have been through since and its like it was.  I found out what happened from a home owner.

Based on what i wrote and the information you have do you thin its over policing?
 

The home owners got together and working with the police hired a security force that in a matter of months cleaned up the neighborhood making it far safer for everyone.  

This is your entire description of the police department's operation. Aside from being completely subjective, like I said earlier, there's no comparison of crime rates, description of police tactics, etc. There is no way for me to make that judgement.

I am not trying to twist anything.  I'm asking you to provide other example of over policing.  Can you do that?

We've already discussed the disparity between black and white incarcertaion rates for drugs, stop and frisk in new york, marijuana arrests rising vs all other drug and violent crime rates falling in California. So, here's another one. Stop and frisk in Florida, which is even worse than New York:

http://fusion.net/story/5568/florida-citys-stop-frisk-nabs-thousands-of-kids-finds-5-year-olds-suspicious/

This is the town where one black man was stopped more than 250 times. 62 times at the same convenience store. 50,000 total stops on a population of about 100,000. From the article:

Between 2008 and 2013, the City of Miami Gardens received over 15 federal grants, many of which were tied, in part, to funding overtime details to support the zero tolerance policy program, according to documents obtained by Fusion.

Two MGPD officers who asked Fusion to protect their identities spoke with us on camera about an unofficial policy of quotas and racial profiling that was rampant in their department. They say they were told by superiors to “get the numbers up” and they were ordered to stop black males between 15 and 30 years old.

[OzmO]

Then ask me a specific question or make a specific observation. If violent crime is the bigger problem, what data do you have to back that up?
As I have said three times, I have talked more about drugs because a)it is the focus of most police departments nationally, b)the numbers affect more people and c)there is plenty of comprehensive data available.

  In what world is drug use a bigger problem than women getting raped, homocide or gang violence?

There you go again trying to make drug enforcement the big issue and dismissing violence

The home owners got together and working with the police hired a security force that in a matter of months cleaned up the neighborhood making it far safer for everyone.  

This is your entire description of the police department's operation. Aside from being completely subjective, like I said earlier, there's no comparison of crime rates, description of police tactics, etc. There is no way for me to make that judgement.

   dodge away

 

We've already discussed the disparity between black and white incarcertaion rates for drugs, stop and frisk in new york,

that's only because certain precincts were targeted which had 70-80% blacks and Latinos in then.  so of course the rates will be higher.  Why were those precents targteted?  Was it becuase there was too many joints in people's pockets?  

marijuana arrests rising vs all other drug and violent crime rates falling in California. So, here's another one. Stop and frisk in Florida, which is even worse than New York:

http://fusion.net/story/5568/florida-citys-stop-frisk-nabs-thousands-of-kids-finds-5-year-olds-suspicious/

This is the town where one black man was stopped more than 250 times. 62 times at the same convenience store. 50,000 total stops on a population of about 100,000. From the article:

Between 2008 and 2013, the City of Miami Gardens received over 15 federal grants, many of which were tied, in part, to funding overtime details to support the zero tolerance policy program, according to documents obtained by Fusion.

Two MGPD officers who asked Fusion to protect their identities spoke with us on camera about an unofficial policy of quotas and racial profiling that was rampant in their department. They say they were told by superiors to “get the numbers up” and they were ordered to stop black males between 15 and 30 years old.

So basically, your whole argument about over-policing centers on stop and frisk and nothing else?

Of course let's ignore the fact the Miami Gardens Violent crime   rate is nearly double that of the rest of the state and burglary is nearly double that of the nation.


but according to you, lets dismiss this because:

In what capacity would you like this addressed?! Like I said previously, violent crime has been steadily declining for the past 25 years nationally and drug related offenses are the number one reason for incarcerations nationally. So why would I think the issue was the thing that affected fewer people? What specifically do you want addressed. Whether or not I feel that higher crime areas warrant a larger police presence. Of course. I've said that. Do they warrant police having carte blanche to behave however they please. Should people cede their civil liberties because of their zip code. Of course not!
 

Unfucking believable 

[Al Doggity]

In what world is drug use a bigger problem than women getting raped, homocide or gang violence?

There you go again trying to make drug enforcement the big issue and dismissing violence

Drug use isn't! And that's not what I said. What I did say is that the number for drug incarcerations affect more people. And they do. Exponentially. Feel free to post a stat showing me I'm wrong, though.

Or anything relevant about policing and violence.

 dodge away

It's not even a statement worth "dodging". the answer is , based on what you've written, it's not overpolicing. But there's no information whatsoever in that post to even make the conclusion, one way or another.  Zip.
 

that's only because certain precincts were targeted which had 70-80% blacks and Latinos in then.  so of course the rates will be higher.  Why were those precents targteted?  Was it becuase there was too many joints in people's pockets?  

Those were two separate examples. National drug incarceration rates  and stop and frisk.

So basically, your whole argument about over-policing centers on stop and frisk and nothing else?

Of course let's ignore the fact the Miami Gardens Violent crime   rate is nearly double that of the rest of the state and burglary is nearly double that of the nation.


but according to you, lets dismiss this because:

Unfucking believable  

so, that's four separate examples, now. a)Stop and frisk is just a mistake. b)Whites don't use drugs more than blacks, the rate is the same, so that explains the huge incarceration disparity. c)Drug penalties, the leading reason for incarcerations nationally, the sole reason behind the swelling prison population, are irrelevantd) And, of course, as you've already stated if an area has a high crime rate, there's no such thing as over-policing.

  I think you got every excuse covered.

[OzmO]

Drug use isn't! And that's not what I said. What I did say is that the number for drug incarcerations affect more people. And they do. Exponentially. Feel free to post a stat showing me I'm wrong, though.

Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them.  Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.

It's not even a statement worth "dodging". the answer is , based on what you've written, it's not overpolicing. But there's no information whatsoever in that post to even make the conclusion, one way or another.  Zip

Did you think i was trying to trap you or something?





 

Those were two separate examples. National drug incarceration rates  and stop and frisk.
so, that's four separate examples, now. a)Stop and frisk is just a mistake. b)Whites don't use drugs more than blacks, the rate is the same, so that explains the huge incarceration disparity. c)Drug penalties, the leading reason for incarcerations nationally, the sole reason behind the swelling prison population, are irrelevantd) And, of course, as you've already stated if an area has a high crime rate, there's no such thing as over-policing.

  I think you got every excuse covered.

Where have i said there is no such thing as over-policing in high crime areas.

Would you have the police do nothing different?

And yeah..... double the violent crime rate in Miami Gardens...  one hell of an excuse.  

All you have pointed out is stop and frisk in different areas.  What other examples are there of over-policing?




...............seriously Al, what's your answer?  What should the police do in these areas of double violent crime?   3.6 per 1000 nationally versus 8.3 per 1000 in Miami Gardens.  Or should we go back to New York City where some areas are almost 3 times the national rate?

[Al Doggity]

Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them.  Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.

And?? What point do you think you're making here? All that needs to happen is change all the laws? 

Did you think i was trying to trap you or something?

I assume you were trying to get me to call it overpolicing, but I legitimately don't understand you think a judgement could even be made from those two sentences. Seriously it just said "Crime was high there. The police got involved. Now it's lowered."  You didn't describe how they brought crime down, you didn't even describe seeing any cops in action. There was no information at all! What in those two sentences did you think I  would consider overpolicing? 

Where have i said there is no such thing as over-policing in high crime areas.

You just did it. Dismissing the stop and frisk stats in Miami Gardens because it has a crime rate higher than the national average... which of course justifies a stop total nearly DOUBLE THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE CITY.  It's not like Miami Gardens is the most dangerous city in the country, or even in Florida.  Nearby Miami has a pretty similar crime profile - and is four times the size- but it had less than five thousand stops.

Would you have the police do nothing different?

Back to your favorite red herring, either stop and frisk every citizen in the town or do nothing. 

[OzmO]

And?? What point do you think you're making here? All that needs to happen is change all the laws?  

Of course not but it would be a start. *See bottom

I assume you were trying to get me to call it overpolicing, but I legitimately don't understand you think a judgement could even be made from those two sentences. Seriously it just said "Crime was high there. The police got involved. Now it's lowered."  You didn't describe how they brought crime down, you didn't even describe seeing any cops in action. There was no information at all! What in those two sentences did you think I  would consider overpolicing?  

Not at all.  I was trying to see what your opinion would be in that instance.

You just did it. Dismissing the stop and frisk stats in Miami Gardens because it has a crime rate higher than the national average... which of course justifies a stop total nearly DOUBLE THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE CITY.   It's not like Miami Gardens is the most dangerous city in the country, or even in Florida.  Nearby Miami has a pretty similar crime profile - and is four times the size- but it had less than five thousand stops.

I am not dismissing it.  It doesn't matter what i do because the fact of overly high crime in that area still exist

Back to your favorite red herring, either stop and frisk every citizen in the town or do nothing.  

You are taking my question, incorrectly identifying it as a red herring (when it directly relates to the topic of our discussion) and then employing *Reductio ad absurdum (reducing to the ridiculous)

I am simply asking what you think should be done in communities with 2-3 times the violent crime and burglary rates.  To think stop and frisk was done to stop people from carrying pot is retarded.

AND, Do you have other examples of "over-policing" other than Stop and Frisk? (a question you continue to ignore)

[Al Doggity]

Of course not but it would be a start. *See bottom

But that's not the reality. So, whether or not "it would be a start", is irrelevant to  a discussion about how things CURRENTLY ARE..

Not at all.  I was trying to see what your opinion would be in that instance.

Honestly, what information do you think those two sentences contained that would allow me to make that judgement?

I am not dismissing it.  It doesn't matter what i do because the fact of overly high crime in that area still exist

Yes, you did. Your only response was "Well, crime is high there".
And, you're having a discussion about overpolicing on a message board, not fighting crime in Florida. For the purposes at hand, of course it matters if you selectively disregard facts.

You are taking my question, incorrectly identifying it as a red herring (when it directly relates to the topic of our discussion) and then employing *Reductio ad absurdum (reducing to the ridiculous)

I am simply asking what you think should be done in communities with 2-3 times the violent crime and burglary rates.

The question diverts from the topic. You believe the Florida police's response was proportional to the area, correct?

To think stop and frisk was done to stop people from carrying pot is retarded.

Where have i said that these programs are to stop people from carrying pot? It would be closer to accurate (but still wrong) to say that I've said the purpose was to PROSECUTE people for carrying pot. And you just posted this:

Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them.  Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.

So, why is it retarded?

AND, Do you have other examples of "over-policing" other than Stop and Frisk? (a question you continue to ignore)

I continue to ignore it because I've already given four examples. On top of that, who says there needs to be more examples??  Like I've already said, the examples I'm using are the ones with the most documentation and the largest scope.