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

[OzmO]

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..
Honestly, what information do you think those two sentences contained that would allow me to make that judgement?
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.
The question diverts from the topic. You believe the Florida police's response was proportional to the area, correct?



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?

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.

No Al, you haven't given 4 examples.

You have given 1 example in play in 4 different areas.

If you have nothing else, just admit it.  Then I will address the other things in your post.

[Al Doggity]

No Al, you haven't given 4 examples.

You have given 1 example in play in 4 different areas.

If you have nothing else, just admit it.  Then I will address the other things in your post.

How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the  decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep decrease in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?

[Al Doggity]

Even if my examples were "limited to stop and frisk", that's more than enough.

[OzmO]

Even if my examples were "limited to stop and frisk", that's more than enough.

You are stalling.

[Al Doggity]

You are stalling.

How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the  decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep decrease in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?

Yeah, I'm stalling.   As if the question itself is not a diversion tactic  

[OzmO]

Yeah, I'm stalling.   As if the question itself is not a diversion tactic  

Guess you can't answer it.  So your whole premise of over policing rest on S/F in high violent crimes areas.  And you are unwilling to submit anything else.  What a disappointment.  

We are not going to agree on S/F.  I don't know for certain that's its over policing as per your definition.  I believe something needs to be done in an area that has 2-3 times the national average of violent crime and burglary.  I don't know what that is.  I don't know that it should be S/F although your attempts to put those words in my mouth have shown your argument is weak.

So i ask what you think should be done, and you run from and ignore the question.

You don't want the focus of this discussion on violent crime/theft.  Which is a big reason for S/F in the first place.  You act as if things are so much better in places like California where violent crime is supposedly down.  I ask if you'd feel comfortable with your GF walking around at night in Oakland and you again run from and ignore the question

Then i ask you what other things are happening that point to over policing and again  run from and ignore the question  

You don't want to face facts.  Some minority neighborhoods are flat out dangerous and if you are minority, instead of bitching about police tactics, take some responsibility.

If you won't participate in a 2 way discussion by answering my questions also don't expect too much from me other than calling you out on the fact that stalling and dodging my questions because your argument has pitifully failed on S/F.

[Al Doggity]

Guess you can't answer it.  So your whole premise of over policing rest on S/F in high violent crimes areas.  And you are unwilling to submit anything else.  What a disappointment.  

Lol ... yeah posted four different examples.    Programs with the largest scope nationally. Such disappointing. pathetic examples 

If you won't participate in a 2 way discussion by answering my questions also don't expect too much from me other than calling you out on the fact that stalling and dodging my questions because your argument has pitifully failed on S/F.

How exactly did my s/f argument "fail pitifully"?    You acknowledged the program is a  failure in NY, yet you attempt to hedge your argument by calling it a "mistake" and "stupid". Despite that, you inadvertently admitted 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, exactly where does my argument fail?

I "ignored and ran froml" your off topic questions because they would give you an excuse to veer off topic even further. All throughout the thread, you would glom on to some non-issue and focus on that for several posts. It was an attempt to keep the discussion between us on topic.

You just wrote this in your last post:

  I believe something needs to be done in an area that has 2-3 times the national average of violent crime and burglary.  I don't know what that is.  I don't know that it should be S/F although your attempts to put those words in my mouth have shown your argument is weak.

Yet, somehow I'm dodging your question when the topic is overpolicing? Unless I have an alternate police strategy, I can't point out how shitty the current one is? It's better just to keep bad programs in place because they're better than nothing?


And how am I putting words in your mouth? Your only response to the Florida stop and frisk numbers was that the area had a high crime rate. The reasonable inference is that you think the numbers are justified. I've asked you to clarify, but you declined. That's an example of a point that actually is on topic.

[flipper5470]

I don't feel like wading through 14 pages...did anyone explain why yelling at people eating eggs Benedict and drinking Mimosas was thought to be a sound idea?

[OzmO]

Lol ... yeah posted four different examples.    Programs with the largest scope nationally. Such disappointing. pathetic examples 

How exactly did my s/f argument "fail pitifully"?    You acknowledged the program is a  failure in NY, yet you attempt to hedge your argument by calling it a "mistake" and "stupid". Despite that, you inadvertently admitted 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, exactly where does my argument fail?

I "ignored and ran froml" your off topic questions because they would give you an excuse to veer off topic even further. All throughout the thread, you would glom on to some non-issue and focus on that for several posts. It was an attempt to keep the discussion between us on topic.

You just wrote this in your last post:

  I believe something needs to be done in an area that has 2-3 times the national average of violent crime and burglary.  I don't know what that is.  I don't know that it should be S/F although your attempts to put those words in my mouth have shown your argument is weak.

Yet, somehow I'm dodging your question when the topic is overpolicing? Unless I have an alternate police strategy, I can't point out how shitty the current one is? It's better just to keep bad programs in place because they're better than nothing?


And how am I putting words in your mouth? Your only response to the Florida stop and frisk numbers was that the area had a high crime rate. The reasonable inference is that you think the numbers are justified. I've asked you to clarify, but you declined. That's an example of a point that actually is on topic.

 

What do you think should be done instead of S/F if anything?

Do you feel violent crime is down enough that you would feel comfortable with your GF walking alone on 30th st in Oakland at night?

What other examples do you have other than S/F that shows there is over policing?

[Al Doggity]

What do you think should be done instead of S/F if anything?

Do you feel violent crime is down enough that you would feel comfortable with your GF walking alone on 30th st in Oakland at night?

What other examples do you have other than S/F that shows there is over policing?

1)I don't have any suggestions for an alternative program.

2)No

3)I posted several examples above.

[OzmO]

1)I don't have any suggestions for an alternative program.

Do you agree or disagree something needs to be done in areas of high violent & theft crimes?

2)No

If people still can't walk down a street without feeling or BEING safe AND if there are areas in this country that are double the average then it doesn't matter how many times you talk about how crime rates are going down.

If S/F reduces crime as a deterrent or does nothing is debatable.  I find conflicting articles with opinions and data that's hard to directly attribute results either way.

For the record, I don't fully agree with you.  I agree that that S/F borders on unconstitutional.  I think there were many cases where S/F was handled poorly and was overboard police harassment in some areas.  I agree S/F didn't seem to have desirable results, but yet the results are debatable in terms of lowering and deterring violent crime or crime increasing when S/F was ended.  I do think it was practical to focus S/F on areas of higher crime regardless of who lives there( and it doesn't matter if crime is going down overall in the nation).  Based on your definition of over policing i can see why you are against S/F.  

3)I posted several examples above.

What examples other than S/F?  (we are just going to go round and round on S/F)

[Al Doggity]

Do you agree or disagree something needs to be done in areas of high violent & theft crimes?

Of course.

If people still can't walk down a street without feeling or BEING safe AND if there are areas in this country that are double the average then it doesn't matter how many times you talk about how crime rates are going down.

Except my assertion was never that the drop in crime meant there were no safety issues in these neighborhoods.
I very clearly said that the extreme drop in almost every crime aacross the board with the exception of one- which skyrocketed- was evidence of selective overpolicing.

If S/F reduces crime as a deterrent or does nothing is debatable.  I find conflicting articles with opinions and data that's hard to directly attribute results either way.

Well, it doesn't work as an apprehension measure.
The data that it works as a deterrent is extremely flimsy.
Even if the data were stronger doesn't change the fact that the scope of the various s&f programs are absurdly broad for the nebulous benefit they provide.

For the record, I don't fully agree with you.  I agree that that S/F borders on unconstitutional.  I think there were many cases where S/F was handled poorly and was overboard police harassment in some areas.  I agree S/F didn't seem to have desirable results, but yet the results are debatable in terms of lowering and deterring violent crime or crime increasing when S/F was ended. 

Then, really argument over. You're just doing your best not to say "you're right". Everything you just posted is an agreement with my original statement: So, again, how has my argument "pitifully failed"?

I do think it was practical to focus S/F on areas of higher crime regardless of who lives there( and it doesn't matter if crime is going down overall in the nation).  Based on your definition of over policing i can see why you are against S/F. 

Whether or not it was practical, the program itself was shit. This is an extreme example, but it's like saying
to fight crime, police are just gonna start burning down homes to lower the population in the area. It might be practical to focus this plan on high crime areas, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just a shitty plan to begin with. Doesn't change the fact that most of the people affected by the plan weren't criminals. Doesn't change the fact that it creates tension between selected communities and police.

This was never the argument, anyway. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, so clarify... do you think those numbers in Florida were reasonable and logical? A stop rate of more than double the population? One guy getting arrested more than 200 times?



3)I posted several examples above.

What examples other than S/F?  (we are just going to go round and round on S/F)

[/quote]


How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the  decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep increase in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?

[OzmO]

I very clearly said that the extreme drop in almost every crime aacross the board with the exception of one- which skyrocketed- was evidence of selective overpolicing.

When did you say "extreme drop?

Then, really argument over. You're just doing your best not to say "you're right".Everything you just posted is an agreement with my original statement: So, again, how has my argument "pitifully failed"?
Whether or not it was practical, the program itself was shit.

No, what i am saying is that based on your definition of over policing you are right.  I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it and the fact that there is makes your argument pitifully failed in addition to you unwilling to answer my questions which you eventually did.   The program may have been shit.  Nothing concrete says one way or another.  However, i do think something needed to be done and needs to be done in those areas.  This didn't get a measurable result that a person could say either way.  But if i was living in those areas, I would appreciate more assertive police rather than responsive police.  Was S/F the best thing for that?  I don't know.  Some of the cases you highlighted certainly were not.

This is an extreme example, but it's like saying
to fight crime, police are just gonna start burning down homes to lower the population in the area. It might be practical to focus this plan on high crime areas, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just a shitty plan to begin with. Doesn't change the fact that most of the people affected by the plan weren't criminals. Doesn't change the fact that it creates tension between selected communities and police.

 Like i said, I don't know that it was a the best thing to do.

This was never the argument, anyway. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, so clarify... do you think those numbers in Florida were reasonable and logical? A stop rate of more than double the population? One guy getting arrested more than 200 times?

  Yeah, not good.  How does he get arrested 200 times?  Do you mean stopped and questioned?

How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the  decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep increase in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?

Ok, are those a result of S/F?

So then, what do you think the reason for racial disparity in drug incarceration rates are?   And are those reasons are over policing?

[andreisdaman]

you guys have got to get a room

[OzmO]

you guys have got to get a room

You and Soul Crusher need to leave it first.   

[andreisdaman]

You and Soul Crusher need to leave it first.   

good point...touche' my friend!

[Soul Crusher]

You and Soul Crusher need to leave it first.   

Leave me out of this - andre is a perverted FREAK

[Al Doggity]

 I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it and the fact that there is makes your argument pitifully failed in addition to you unwilling to answer my questions which you eventually did.  

  So, this is it. You don't believe overpolicing is possible in a high-crime area. How am I putting words in your mouth? You've said this in various ways multiple times and it's clear as day here.

You just can't bring yourself to say "you're right". You agree with every point (except when you backpedal) and your justification of these things is "Well, it's better than nothing" ?!

So, andre is right. This is essentially over. This is just one of those convos where you're just gonna twist in the wind without admitting the obvious. Which is pretty much de riguer for an internet message board and about all I expected anyway. 


BTW, as I said, I wasn't answering your off-topic questions so you would stay on topic. I've answered them and you have yet to relate them to the topic.

[OzmO]

So, this is it. You don't believe overpolicing is possible in a high-crime area. How am I putting words in your mouth? You've said this in various ways multiple times and it's clear as day here.

 unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You did it earlier a couple of times and you just did it again.... where did i say "i don't believe over policing is possible in a high-crime area?"   I didn't say that.  I said:

"I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it"  In other words:  If there isn't a justifiable reason for a program to increase police activity then its over policing.  For example, S/F in an area whose violent crime rate is 1.9/1000 vs the 3.6 national average as opposed to an area like Miami Gardens where is 8.1.

That doesn't mean i think there should Marshall Law in those areas because the crime rate is 8.1.  But if there is rioting like there was with the Rodney King deal in the 90's, then it might have been necessary.

Now, take some fucking accountability for putting words in my mouth!!!!!
 

You just can't bring yourself to say "you're right". You agree with every point (except when you backpedal) and your justification of these things is "Well, it's better than nothing" ?!

No, not at all.  You cannnot accept the distinction i established with my definition of over-policing so you resorted to putting owrds into my mouth.  Hence...another pitiful argument.

So, andre is right. This is essentially over. This is just one of those convos where you're just gonna twist in the wind without admitting the obvious. Which is pretty much de riguer for an internet message board and about all I expected anyway.  

So that's your method of ending the debate?  Put words in person's mouth and then say its over?  

    GMAFB!!!!


FACE THE FACTS AL:  If those areas didn't have such a high violent crime rate there would have never likely been a S/F in the first dam place!!!!!!!

[TheGrinch]

more gentle giants


http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/27867659/suspects-in-haines-city-robbery-ided-as-1-remains-at-large

[Al Doggity]

 unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You did it earlier a couple of times and you just did it again.... where did i say "i don't believe over policing is possible in a high-crime area?"   I didn't say that.  I said:

"I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it"  In other words:  If there isn't a justifiable reason for a program to increase police activity then its over policing.  For example, S/F in an area whose violent crime rate is 1.9/1000 vs the 3.6 national average as opposed to an area like Miami Gardens where is 8.1.

That doesn't mean i think there should Marshall Law in those areas because the crime rate is 8.1.  But if there is rioting like there was with the Rodney King deal in the 90's, then it might have been necessary.

Now, take some fucking accountability for putting words in my mouth!!!!!

So, stops at a rate double the town's population isn't practically Marshall law? Stopped dozes, in some cases LITERALLY hundreds of times?  

So, your argument is that the program itself is justified, so no matter how it's implemented, no matter what the scope, that's justified, too?

FACE THE FACTS AL:  If those areas didn't have such a high violent crime rate there would have never likely been a S/F in the first dam place!!!!!!!

...Once again...  


Yeah, it's over.

[OzmO]

So, stops at a rate double the town's population isn't practically Marshall law? Stopped dozes, in some cases LITERALLY hundreds of times?  

So, your argument is that the program itself is justified, so no matter how it's implemented, no matter what the scope, that's justified, too?

...Once again...  


Yeah, it's over.

So you can even own up to putting words in my mouth can you?

It also looks like you are pathetically ignorant of the definition of Martial Law.  

That's 2 more unpleasant facts you must face.  

[Al Doggity]

So you can even own up to putting words in my mouth can you?

It also looks like you are pathetically ignorant of the definition of Marshall Martial Law.  

That's 2 more unpleasant facts you must face.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus,

Naw, it was apt.


I didn't put words in your mouth. You keep saying "Well, these programs are justified in these particular areas even though they're failures." A big reason they are failures is because their scopes are way too broad for the results they do or could hope to achieve. They hassle innocent citizens more effectively than they fight or reduce crime. They are vehicles for overpolicing.

So, clarify if I'm misrepresenting you. I've asked several times and you've avoided? Is scope irrelevant? Is there a point where the number of stops is irrational in your opinion?

[OzmO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus,

Naw, it was apt.


I didn't put words in your mouth. You keep saying "Well, these programs are justified in these particular areas even though they're failures." A big reason they are failures is because their scopes are way too broad for the results they do or could hope to achieve. They hassle innocent citizens more effectively than they fight or reduce crime. They are vehicles for overpolicing.

So, clarify if I'm misrepresenting you. I've asked several times and you've avoided? Is scope irrelevant? Is there a point where the number of stops is irrational in your opinion?

Practically means almost, nearly, in effect, close.   Based on the definition of martial law you provided what went on in MG isnt even close.

And you still haven't come close to owning up to putting words in my mouth on several occasions.

Try again

[Al Doggity]

Practically means almost, nearly, in effect, close.   Based on the definition of martial law you provided what went on in MG isnt even close.

Naw, it was apt.


[/quote]
And you still haven't come close to owning up to putting words in my mouth on several occasions.

Try again
[/quote]

Because I've done no such thing. Even in  the post in which you allegedly clarified your position, you didn't actually do that. We're not talking about theoretical imposition of martial law, we're talking about the actual and current implementation of the examples I've given. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, but you still have yet to clarify how I've done that. Is there a point where the number of stops is irrational? Or do you believe that if an area has a crime rate higher than the national average that any number of stops is reasonable?