Wow, lol. Harassing people on the street who are involved in no crime and have no suspicion of committing a crime for the sole purpose of making them feel unsafe in their environment only creates further resentment towards LEO's and creates an escalated state of tension between LE and the public. No matter what cops and politicians tell you about stop & frisk, it's a failed policy that stops black youth from fully reaching self actualization and realizing that they are not a criminal simply because of their ethnic orientation and financial status. I could go on and on about how the police, and policy in general, oppresses the poor, but stop & frisk is such an obviously over-the-top policy that bathes itself in unwarranted aggression that I am actually genuinely surprised at your statements.
Exactly. In a free society, ideally people should be able to exercise free choice and should be conscious of the choices available to them. I believe in more transparent labeling of foods, and that companies should state all their ties to parent companies (so many "healthy" companies propping up these days that are just puppets of the mega-corporations to leech away the 'alternative' demographic), and ultimately the market will be more representative of consumer demand.
Good points. Without proper labeling, freedom to choose is compromised and the market place power relations becomes one sided. Not sure if that was your point, but it's what I'm getting out of what you posted.
This data represents a self-fulfilling prophecy: 1.) Crime statistics are worst in the poorest neighborhoods, therefore: a.) We will enforce a policy of actively stopping innocent civilians on the street and treating them like criminals without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion. b.) We will set up 'sting operations' that effectively create more black-market sales and entrap youth in activity that is increasingly abundant due to our pseudo-legal operations that carry out crimes under the guise of 'law enforcement'. 'Sting operations' create more crime, this is UNDENIABLE. c.) We will have increased roaming patrols in the poorest neighborhoods to actively seek out low-level offenders and contribute to crime statistics that will lead to further justification of a, b, and c. It is a known fact that the black population (in all of the US) is unproportionately incarcerated and targeted by LE. So even after admitting the short-comings of 'stop & frisk' you claim that we "have do make do with what we have" which is a failed policy being desperately preserved by NYPD, and instead of addressing the problem at it's source - 'gun control' legislation - you seek to continue an oppressive policy that creates more tensions between the public and LE. I really don't understand your reasoning.
So glad that last one was overruled Bloomberg, a perfect example of a human wanting to force their own opinion upon others. You know what they say about those! And he's got power behind his Tell me, Mr. Bloomberg, just how many more laws is NYC in need of, before it's paradise? Let me know when that happens, and I'll pack my bags And your proposed ban on e-cigarettes is likely going to drive people away from a great harm reduction method. How thoughtful of you.
a mayor is the head of the executive branch. those laws are the opinions of the legislative branch that represent the opinions of people that live in the city. just because you dont agree doesn't mean anyone is "forcing his opinion upon others"
Oh really? Because "forcing opinions on others" is exactly what the entire legislative process is about. Pertaining to this quote: "those laws are the opinions of the legislative brance that represent the opinion of people that live in that city"-- I call bullshit. Bureaucrats are fueled by special interests, for example, pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want to see marijuana legal because it would hurt their businesses. These are the same bureaucrats that with the magic of pen and paper are able to make marijuana illegal. Therefore, this opinion may or may not be "the will of the people", and in this case, statistically isn't the opinion of the people. Also, what if only one individual in the entire city had the opinion that marijuana should be legal, and the entire other section of the population had the opinion that marijuana should be illegal? This would, by definition, mean that a portion of the population is indeed "forcing his opinion upon others". There is no arguing this, so please do not even try, or to say some nonsense such as "well if that individual doesn't like it, leave".
'Black people need intense surveillance by the state and its law enforcement, or they'll kill each other. Just look at the statistics, blacks are super violent.' Your racism is showing...
http://youtu.be/nMG1qjpzNPg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NokZdFXy6RU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2n-SwUF0R4
You know nothing. S&F has no short comings. Even after providing you with statistics, you still deny that S&F is a legitimate and functional program. You're letting emotions dictate legislation, which is something a child would do, not an adult that seeks to build a functional society. </div>
Every policy has short comings. Compromise are always made when you enforce law on others. The very fact that you have made this statement demonstrates how you are blind to the adverse effects of such a policy and the reality of law. I'm done arguing with you, I have made my points and cannot make them any clearer. Policing in the US is operating under a failed system that only creates more criminals and fear in our society. "The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it." - Louis Simpson - "Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear." - Albert Camus - Our current police paradigm consists of paramilitary training, enhanced spending and grants from the federal government, and a systematic lack of compassion and respect for human rights and dignity. Stop and Frisk is one of the flagship embodiments of these new principles in law enforcement. I am done.
Apparently they do have the right to do that. Most residents of New York City are in favor of Stop and Frisk. I
Stop and frisk goes directly against the 4th and 5th amendment no matter how many people like it. I dare you to refute that.