Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mowotlarx t1_j36j4z0 wrote

Reply to comment by stalkingshadow01 in Teen violence spiraling out of control in NYC, Eric Adams and NYPD warn by someone_whoisthat

>at the cost of inconvenience

At the cost of a massive civil rights violation directed by racial discrimination, you mean?

20

Rottimer t1_j37th2t wrote

Because it won’t inconvenience him. It won’t make people safer either, he’ll just feel safer knowing cops are “inconveniencing” people he looks at as criminals.

4

stalkingshadow01 t1_j3brd9m wrote

That’s just not true. I have been stopped and frisked before and my building’s near major police presence, so if it’s brought back, I will be stopped and frisked in the future. But that’s all I see it as each time I was stopped- an inconvenience.

It’s a question on whether lives are worth the inconvenience, and based on the downvotes, I’m sad to see political correctness > black and brown lives.

0

Rottimer t1_j3cdou4 wrote

Imagine calling complaints about rank racism “political correctness.”

You’ll have to forgive me if I doubt your story. Regardless, you would have to be exceedingly ignorant of stop and frisk policy if you think the criticisms of it are about “political correctness.” It didn’t save black and brown lives. And it was more than an “inconvenience” for a lot of people.

0

stalkingshadow01 t1_j3cibjk wrote

To be effective, doctors target illnesses and firefighter target fires. Likewise police should target areas of high crime and high risk individuals, which is what policy is designed to do and there is nothing racist about that.

On the practical side, I recognize certain minorities will be getting stopped and frisked more than others, the same minorities that are disproportionately affected by gun violence. I see it as a trade off, inconvenience vs lives saved. People are still debating effectiveness, but the design is sound in my opinion.

Do you have some personal reason to be so against the policy, what was your experience with it during the Bloomberg years?

0

Rottimer t1_j3ctl0p wrote

So once again, despite recorded evidence to the contrary, you're making the assertion that stop and frisk worked. It did not. And it's not me saying that. It's researchers that studied it.

And despite the policy being found explicitly racist in a court of law, you'll deny that too. I really have no interest in arguing with someone that denies reality.

Have a great day.

1

stalkingshadow01 t1_j3d53g6 wrote

Except you’re wrong, there’s plenty that support the policy worked, but I acknowledge there’s disagreement on the matter, and you should at least do the same.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1151121

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2020/02/28/stop-and-frisk-legal-effective-democrats-attack-mike-bloomberg/4856378002/

https://theconversation.com/amp/stop-and-frisk-can-work-under-careful-supervision-127785

https://psmag.com/.amp/news/trump-is-still-a-fan-of-stop-and-frisk-but-does-it-work

There’s probably just as much disagreement on whether it’s racist; and it’s not about whether anyone’s living in your reality or not.

I’m curious why you didn’t respond to my question about your actual experience on the matter. Do you even have a dog in this fight or are you just some arm chair liberal that likes to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your worldview.

1