William Bratton on reducing gun violence: enforce the law

It worked in New York and it would work in other cities too, he says – we just need the will.

Mr. Bratton predicts that “the most successful focus is going to be on the licensing and background checks. Because that’s the heart of the problem—who gets access to the guns?” he says. “Clearly a large number of people who shouldn’t have firearms actually apply through the process and obtain firearms.” He also argues that Congress ought to confirm a permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the first time since 2006.

But the gun reform that truly gets Mr. Bratton fired up is one you don’t hear much about these days. It is what he calls “certainty of punishment,” or stricter gun-crime sentences.

“People are out on the streets who should be in jail. Jail is appropriate for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of an act of violence. Some cities have a deplorable lack of attention to this issue,” he says, citing Philadelphia.

In Chicago, where the murder rate rose 16% last year, “to try to put someone in jail for gun-related activity you really have to go the extra mile,” he says. “If there’s one crime for which there has to be a certainty of punishment, it is gun violence.” He ticks off other places where help is needed: “Oakland, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore—all have gangs whose members have no capacity for caring about life and respect for life. Someone like that? Put ‘em in jail. Get ‘em off the streets. Keep people safe.

[When appointed NYC Police Commissioner]  Mr. Bratton publicly promised to cut crime by 10% in his first year and 15% in his second. Privately he told Mr. Giuliani that crime would drop 40% in three years.

And down it went. In two years, murders fell 39%, robbery 31%, burglary 25% and car theft 36%. By 1998, two years after he left the job but with his programs firmly in place, murders had fallen 70%, robbery 55%, burglary 53% and car theft 61%.

Another innovation was the almost obsessive use of timely crime data to drive tactics and accountability. Police began questioning every person arrested with a gun about where, when and how it was obtained. Detectives were instructed to investigate all shootings as if they were murders.

All of this went on under a legal architecture that had existed for years, including a 1974 state gun-control law considered the strictest in the nation. The tide turned so dramatically only in 1994, says Mr. Bratton, because finally the police enforced the law “fairly, compassionately and consistently” across all neighborhoods.

… Another part of the anti-violence solution was the 1968 Supreme Court ruling Terry v. Ohio, which held that a police officer is allowed to stop, question and frisk a person on the street if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. “Stop-and-frisk” became a central feature of policing—and now, in a transformed New York two decades later, it has become a matter of controversy. Liberals want it banned.

Critics of stop-and-frisk argue that it discriminates against blacks and Hispanics, who are the subjects of a majority of stops. Proponents say this simply reflects the demographic realities of crime. Although blacks make up only 23% of New York’s population, for example, they accounted for more than 60% of all murder victims in 2011 and committed some 80% of all shootings. The issue is now in the federal courts, where for the first time a judge last week ruled a part of the program unconstitutional.

 

68 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

68 responses to “William Bratton on reducing gun violence: enforce the law

  1. JRH

    So I assume, CF, that your libertarianism and your general distrust of state power looks the other way when a large government agency runs a program of subjecting young black men to near-daily stops and searches?

    • yaawn – who do you think are the victims of those young black men? Other blacks, many of them also young men. As I keep pointing out here, you people couldn’t care less about young blacks except as a useful tool to demonstrate hw compassionate you are towards the disadvantaged, and aren’t you special? Go take your knee-jerk silliness to Chicago and peddle it to the dead and dying.

    • hmmm

      That’s where the crime is but you’re the type thats okay with frisking and strip searching grandma at the airport

      Do you also believe that if portchester schools were more racially balanced the performance would be better?

      • JRH

        Actually, yes. Integrated schools produce, on the whole, better educational outcomes for their students. (They are also, you know, a moral and constitutional imperative, but I know that’s fodder for eye-rolling on this blog.) Relatedly, economic integration makes cities safer.

        • hmmm

          better test scores or better as in feel good i went to a diverse school?

        • hmmm

          oh and who produces these studies? the same folks that promote the programs…keep up the good work

        • Just_looking

          @ JRH, check the details… I believe that integrated school score better because they now have some higher scores mixed in to bring the average (mean) score up, but that the poor performers continue to perform poorly (look at median and distribution before and after integration as a start).

  2. Fred2

    I have a better idea.

    Make the gun laws simple, obvious, reciprocal and predictable.

    Only THEN enforce them.

    That way some poor sod doesn’t get screwed over for violating some weird strict law in some dumb jurisdiction (e.g. New York) that’s perfectly unheard of in more civilized locales.

    • D

      Agreed – Unfortunately, it would involve taking it out of state’s hands. Individual state-specific (or even individual town-specific) gun regulations only ensnare unwitting law abiding citizens. I was always afraid driving to school in Vermont with my guns. Certainly legal in CT and VT, but a legal grey area driving through MA. Luckily – Never got stopped so I never had to find out…

      • Fred2

        Well, to echo the most hypocritical (or, to be fair, the ignorant too) gun control advocates, : We need sensible control legislation….

        I would use the the Princess Bride comment on them: “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

        But yeah it would be hard to implement decent laws when the indecent and amoral are obviously in charge.

  3. AJ

    I believe you have broadened your definition of suspicion from an earlier post to probable cause, something I have no argument against.

    • JRH

      AJ, if you think that the NYPD’s stop and frisk program has anything to do with probable cause, you don’t know what’s going on.

      • Anon

        Honestly JRH. I’m scared that you are going to be a lawyer. Your world is crazy upside down of what’s right and wrong. Go buy the DVDs of old seasons of Law & Order with Lenny Briscoe.

        • JRH

          If you think I’m wrong, why don’t you make even the most minimal effort to prove the point? Stop and frisk has nothing to do with probable cause, as even the NYPD would tell you.

        • Just_looking

          @ JRH, I think profiling is the best and smartest thing that police should do, and that by not profiling they are derelict and incompetent.
          If 80% of the convienence stores in midtown were robbed by a 70 yr old British woman, for example, and the police spent most of their time chasing down anyone nonwhite for that crime, I don’t think any one would think that a good use of resources.
          Go with the high probability for better outcomes.

        • JRH

          You’re entitled to that opinion, of course, Just_looking. But it’s unconstitutional.

      • AJ

        I haven’t been to NYC in over twenty, probably closer to twenty-five years, so yeah, you’re right I have no idea what’s going on, but I have a pretty good idea any way.

        Here’s my response to CF’s ephemeral much narrower definition of suspicion:

        “…What you describe as “[A] program by which police stop suspicious looking people and pat them down for guns” is a very narrow view of “stop and frisk”. What stop and frisk is, is a violation of a persons fourth amendment rights; suspicious looking doesn’t meet the probable cause threshold. What it amounts to is racial harassment, and the arresting of a lot of people for possession of small amounts of drugs; and probably a fair amount of people in possession of folding knives, but then I would believe they are just exercising their second amendment rights. When they target groups like black people who are dressed in normal attire for where they come from, there is no question that they are violating peoples civil rights. And when one group, such as gun owners, lose their rights, then everyone loses their rights.

        As far as the one tenth the guns deaths compared to Chicago, I think that because of the tough and pretty much mandatory sentencing for gun possession in NYC, I think that even most dumb criminals are smart enough to not use a gun. And why should they when a knife, a lead pipe, tire iron, or superior numbers will just as easily do the trick.”

        My response was addressed to what, perhaps, is most likely to be happening. My advice to anyone stopped by the cops who want to search you is to always ask whether they are ordering you or asking your permission. If they’re ordering you, it would be very unwise to resist. However, if they are asking you, the answer is always no. It would also be wise to conceal a small recording device in your car or on you’re person to act as a witness. Never talk to the police or offer any information, especially if you have nothing to do with it, because as soon as you open your mouth, you now do. And remember that the police are sneaky devils and while it’s legal for them to lie to you, it’s not legal for you to lie to them.
        Keep in mind that the police are also robbing people of whatever cash they have on them on highways all across the country, even from people who have ATM receipts, and it’s up to you the victim to prove your money is not proceeds of crime.

  4. Chimney

    I guess somebody forgot to tell the bad guys that they are supposed to get a background check and a license- If someone wants a gun bad enough, there are plenty of places or buddies he can get one from with a little green, or a nice trip to Canada or Mexico.

    • Thanks to Eric holder, plenty of AK-47s in Mexico.

      • AJ

        Thanks to Eric Holder plenty of drugs on the streets: it was a gun for drugs program. Thanks to Eric Holder plenty of pedophiles running aroung with get out of jail for free passes. But at least at today’s inaguration we did have a free speech zone; they do intend to destroy the entire Bill of Rights.

        “…They are not coming for our guns

        “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

        Would you believe me if I wrote that the government is not after our guns? Probably not, as it certainly looks that way with the pending executive orders and new gun legislation. Well, the guns are secondary. I urge you to think bigger, “think outside of the box.” Make no mistake about this, they will come after our guns, but they are coming after us.

        By believing in the Constitution, we’ve earned ourselves a spot on the latest incarnation of the White House enemies list. By supporting the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land, we’ve identified ourselves as an enemy of the state. By “clinging” to our guns and Bibles, we pose a danger to the globalist agenda rooted in socialism, fascism and communism. By understanding that we are being victimized by an out-of-control banking system, we have earned a spot on the “single-cause” terrorist watch list. By becoming informed of the tyranny that exists before us, we have become a threat to their ultimate global objectives.

        They are afraid of not just the guns, but of by a well armed and well informed populace that understands the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. It is the well informed and the well armed that they fear, as they should. The are racing against the clock as we become more informed and better armed. Accordingly, they must act in haste, as they see us rapidly peeling away the layers of lies that have kept them insulated for so long.

        Certainly, they will attempt to get our guns, but make no mistake that it’s us, or those unwilling to be serfs, who they are after. Their hunt will be relentless, matching their end-game objective of creating the royal elite while enslaving the unwashed….”

        http://www.thedailysheeple.com/understanding-the-obama-conspiracy-u-s-takeover_012013

        • stedenko

          AJ! You live in CANADA fer chrisakes.

          You and Don Laird are like the Wayne and Garth of the Canuck version of Infowars

        • AJ

          I’m a US citizen, born in lower Manhattan on the fourth of July, lived in the US most of my life, first member of the family born in America in Virginia Jamestown settlement, 1612, also have great, great, … grandparents from the Plymouth settlement, and the founder of the first English settlement in what was to become New York; and as a US citizen, even though I live outside the country, have the privilege of paying US income tax without representation. It’s hard to get more blond-haired, blue-eyed American than me, and it pains me to see what has happened to my country. BTW I love Infowars; it should be mandatory viewing, especially for metrosexual libtards as well as pin headed, small-minded conservatives.

  5. hmmm

    Don’t expect any legislators (state or federal) to address the facts of the above posting especially the section in bold. The truth is not what they are after it’s all about feel good legislation and pretending that they are doing something.

    Acting on facts would upset too many liberals and cost the politicians their jobs as seen in the on going gun debates

  6. Anonymous

    Bratton’s program would reduce gun crime.

    Heck, paying the Canadians to take Chicago off our hands would reduce US gun murders by 5% to 7% in one stroke.

    The problem with Bratton’s program and selling Chicago to the Canucks is they do nothing to achieve the core objective of a vindictive Obama: the punitive disarmament of peaceful, independent, productive, well-armed, and thusfar law-abiding Americans who refuse to submit to Barry’s imperial government.

  7. Balzac

    Bratton says stop-and-frisk plus longer sentences for gun-related crime would reduce gun violence.

    These truths are so obvious that only a liberal intellectual could oppose them.

    • hmmm

      are you referring to jrh?

    • JRH

      It’s probably true that widespread invasions of privacy would catch more criminals and reduce crime. But the Constitution exists to make it harder, not easier, for the police to do their work. That’s why Justice Hugo Black, no wild-eyed liberal, could say so plainly when he was asked whether certain of the Supreme Court’s decisions “made it more difficult for the police to combat crime”: “Certainly. Why shouldn’t they?” As Black said, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments all “were intended to make it more difficult” for the police to combat crime. Of course it would be easier to reduce crime if the police could stop anyone they wanted to for little more reason than they wanted to. But that’s why a bunch of liberal intellectuals wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place, Balzac.

      • hmmm

        do you agree with the 2nd amendment or do you cherry pick which amendments are valid and worth referring back to when trying to prove a point?

        • JRH

          Of course I “agree” with the Second Amendment. You have a limited right to keep and bear arms, and the government has the prerogative to regulate that right as it regulates your rights to speech, travel, assembly, reproductive freedom, and other fundamental rights.

        • The government has the prerogative to regulate that right as it regulates your rights to speech, travel, assembly, reproductive freedom, and other fundamental rights.

          What are these regulations you refer to, JR, that restrict the rights of free speech et als? I wonder whether you’d approve of a local municipality restricting the right to free speech as you do the right to bear arms? For instance, if NYC has the right to prohibit those with gun licenses from other states from carrying weapons in the city, does it also have the right to restrict meddlers from other areas of the country from showing up and, say, “stirring up the coloreds” as they did in Mississippi? Does a town have the right, as so many did during the Depression, of telling job seekers to “keep walking, we have no jobs for our own”?
          Do tell.

        • JRH

          Chris, the number of regulations that infringe an absolute right to free speech are too numerous to list here. They run the gamut from mandatory disclosure rules of everything from securities information to nutritional data, to laws prohibiting libel and slander, to laws prohibiting the making of threats, to laws prohibiting sexual harassment, to laws forbidding servicemembers from engaging in certain kinds of political activity, to rules that apportion certain areas of public events as “free speech zones” and restrict protest activity in other locations, et cetera. Some of these laws are well worth having; all of them restrict a right to absolute freedom of speech.

        • Slander, libel and material misrepresentations of fact in securities sales are restricted by private action: suits in damages; “free speech zones” and speech that constitutes, in someone’s opinion, sexual harassment, are recent and unwelcome extensions of state authority that ought to be struck down, and citizens who join the military do lose some of the constitutional rights of mere civilians.
          Having said all that, I’ve now lost the thread of this conversation.

        • JRH

          The fact that they are enforced by private action (and not always, state attorneys general can bring suit when material misreps defraud public investment plans, etc.) doesn’t at all rebut the point that they are infringements on an absolute freedom of speech. Private actions proceed under public rules and their judgments are made and enforced by the state, and of course can have constitutional implications. The most recent Supreme Court First Amendment case arose from a private action, a tort claim by a soldier’s family against the extremist “church” that picketed his funeral. Eight justices were of the view that enforcing that private action would violate the Constitution. That these laws are enforced in that manner is totally irrelevant to what we’re talking about.

          Free speech zones and sexual harassment laws may be “recent and unwelcome extensions of state authority,” and I understand that a Chief Justice Fountain would strike them down, but as you’re aware they’ve been upheld in countless challenges. Not a rebuttal.

          “Citizens who join the military do lose some of their constitutional rights.” Well, yes, that’s my point. Speech rights aren’t absolute.

          We could also have discussed laws requiring the disclosure of the names and addresses of campaign contributors. (I would guess you don’t much like those laws, but they exist and have been held to be constitutional.) Or a judge’s power to issue and enforce a gag order. Or the prosecutor’s ability to issue a subpoena and compel the production of documents or testimony.

          Etc., etc.

    • stedenko

      You dickies bitch about TSA infringment but support stop and frisk? If Greenwich had a stop and frisk policy, I’d bet you’d have a different point of view.

      • Mickster

        Thats actually a great point!!!

        • hmmm

          stop and frisk all you want just like pavlov’s dogs the police will stop frisking me and continuing frisking where the crime is

      • Anonymous

        Great point. We have so much crime here in Greenwich that it would be hypocritical to complain about a stop and frisk policy. We’re so much like the inner city. We really need these ideas to reduce our outrageous violent crime rate. Great analogy.

      • GPD Folk

        There is a Stop & Frisk policy in Greenwich…it’s the same policy that is followed by Police Departments across the US. If a Police Officer has a reasonable suspicion (based on specific & articulable facts) that a person is, has, or will be committing a crime and that the person is possibly armed, the Police Officer may conduct a pat down of that person. Bear in mind that the exclusionary rule protects people from unreasonable searches by the police to gather eveidence not searches to ensure the safety of the Officer or to prevent crime.

        • Just_looking

          Thank you.

        • AJ

          What you just described meets the threshold of probable cause, but stopping people for displaying furtive movement, that would be acting nervously, or walking suspiciously does not, and according to the linked article that’s what’s happening in NYC. Given many black people’s experience with the police, who could blame them for looking like they want to avoid them. Given the thousands of examples of police acting like criminals, which many people are unaware of because their only source of news is the MSM, everyone should be nervous when they see a cop. Hell, I bet if you stopped every lawyer and Wall Street broker and trader, you’d get a lot of contraband off the streets.

          “… frisks are supposed to be conducted “only when an officer reasonably suspects the person has a weapon.” …

          …Is 588,000 more stops of civilians for the CRIME OF WALKING SUSPICIOUSLY [caps mine] worth a possible link to 55 less homicides?…

          …Is the possibility of increased safety worth getting stopped and patted down on the sidewalk for displaying “FURTIVE MOVEMENT”? [caps mine]To me, it seems desperate and flailing and ill-conceived. There has to be a better way.”

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/17/stop-and-frisk-by-the-numbers/

        • Anonymous

          Know all about that GPD policy……..I was on the receiving end of it a almost dozen times……..for the crime of having long hair. Never arested, and no contraband found. Nasty and PR were particularly agressive

        • AJ

          Oops, after reading anony’s 12:59 post, so much for probable cause. Those longhairs are real gangbanger gun freaks; a lot of them are just peacenik stoners — a true menace to society — others are just saving money on haircuts, want to score with hippy chicks (they are known to be quite wild), or just hoping to get a part as an extra in some made for TV Viking, barbarian movie.

          Word to the bird, wear a baseball cap, then instead of being a hippy, you can be a redneck hillbilly — they’re quite disrespectful of authority, and it will help you play the part (see Stanislavski’s “Creating a Role”). Be aggressive in your manner of speaking and remember to always answer a question with a question. Always ask for a name and badge number and conceal a recording device. A dozen stops amounts to harassment; I know people who have sued and won in cases similar to what you describe; record and keep records. And if you get your ass kicked, it could be the easiest million you’ll ever make.

  8. New Buyer

    I worked in law enforcement for nearly a decade and partly under Bratton. The tough gun laws, hard jail time, and the stop & frisk policy reduced crime dramatically in NYC. Indeed entire drug, prostitution, and organized crime rings were brought down when a member was caught with a gun, faced high jail time, and flipped eagerly. In fact, young drug dealers were ordered by higher-ups NOT to carry guns bc jail time was automatic, while a first time drug sale was probation. NYC, however, is not the rest of the country. One important point Bratton is making is that tough enforcement, rigorous gun laws, and thorough background checks do not occur in the rest of the country. In fact, they are pathetically weak. Most guns pulled off the street in NYC were unregistered or traced back to the south. The oft-told joke was that in Georgia you can stop for gas, buy a can of soda, and purchase a pistol all at the same time. And, unlike other cities/states, NYC has the strictest carrying and concealed weapons possession laws in the country, Since only law enforcement can carry on their person, arrests and jail time are a lot simpler — if you have a gun you go to jail, period. If the gun is loaded, you get more jail time. If it’s loaded with hollow tip bullets, even more jail. There were next to no plea bargains on gun cases. Not every city & state is willingly to follow Bratton’s tough and smart policies.

    As for the limousine liberals claiming NYC’s gun and stop-frisk policy is racist, the argument is bogus. 90% of all violent crime in NYC is committed against minorities and/or in in minority neighborhoods. People on Park Avenue don’t have drug dealers and strung out junkies hanging out on their stoops or street corner, but far too many decent, hard working minorities witness it every day.

    • Mick "Not quite so obtuse" ster

      Amen, amen, amen….I watched a black women on TV the other night saying “If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem being stopped”. I almost screamed at the TV “Abolutely right!!!”

      • JRH

        I know some old white dudes from the 18th century who would find that pretty reprehensible, but you guys love the Constitution, right?

      • AJ

        Mick, that’s the same tactic that’s being used againt you to stomp on the second, fourth, and fifth amendments — now they even have free speech zones, off to the side where no one will hear you, outside of which you’re opinion can get you thrown in jail. I sentence you to a week of total immersion in infowars until your powers of observation and critical thinking are restored.

    • stedenko

      NYC 2011
      686,000 stop and frisk
      2% of frisks resulted in contraband
      670,000 frisked had no contraband
      84% were black and hispanic who only make up 27% of the population.

      • 27% of the population, 80% of the shooters, 60% of the shootees.
        UPDATE: thinking about it, if you took out of that 27% figure those under 12 and over, say, 50, then the law abiding, then most of the women, you probably end up with about 5% of the city’s population doing 80% of the shooting. Just sayin’.

        • AJ

          Very slippery slope. When one group loses their rights, everyone loses their rights: give them an inch; they’ll take your whole arm — it’s always incremental, always sounds reasonable, something done to someone else till you wake up one morning to find out it’s you who got f*cked. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

          We could go full blown, full technology 1984, and there would be no crime except that of the criminals in government — a hell that would make you pray to be placed on a dark street on a bad night in Harlem. We threw out the fourth and fifth amendments because what if little Johnny got his hands on some weed, and morphed that into the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Yield nothing or lose everything.

      • New Buyer

        There is a valid argument that the stop & frisk practice has become too common/frequent over the last decade. The numbers have gone up each year. (You failed to note that the s&f numbers for 2012 are lower by almost 20%.) And yes, there needs to be a check on improper police use of the practice. HOWEVER, that in no way means that the entire policy should be abandoned. The NYPD and courts need to closely monitor the practice and its execution, but the policy should be firmly upheld. If you want to look at some more stats, go the NYPD website and look precinct by precinct as the types and number of crimes being committed in each neighborhood. It wont surprise you that the vast majority of the high crime neighborhoods are the same ones that have the highest rate of stop-and-frisks. Why do you think that is? It also may sadden you to see the stats showing that the victims are nearly always poor, minorities who are raped, burglarized, murdered, and robbed by their own neighbors. Who is championing their right to be safe?

        • JRH

          I don’t think stop and frisk is per se unconstitutional, I just think that reasonable suspicion actually means something more than being a young black man.

  9. Walt

    Dude –
    I have absolutely no problem with the stop and frisk laws. As a matter of fact, I think we should all just all walk around nude. Then you don’t need stop and frisk laws!!
    It would make everyone get in shape, require less laundry, so we are greener, and make us all safer. So why not do that? Problem solved!!
    I have nothing to hide. What about you?
    Needle dick.
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  10. Walt

    And Dude –
    I find it so disrespectful that Michelle Obama wore a Darth Vader helmet to the Inauguration. Am I the only one?

    If Barry wore Groucho Marx eyeglass, moustache and nose while he gave his speech, would people not be pissed? I would actually have liked it, but that is just me.

    If Joe Biden mooned the crowd, would folks not be offended? I would have liked that too, but I am an infant. I think most people would have a problem with it, for some reason.

    But Moochelles Darth Vader helmet has crossed the line. She is a Wookie. She will always be a Wookie, and that is what we expect.

    And I will not forgive Nancy Pelosi for not putting on green face and going as the Wicked Witch of the East. Maxwell’s Coffee DUDE!!

    Was Francis there dressed as the Incredible Hulk? That eunich.

    Your Pal,
    Walt

  11. Mark B.

    Chris, I’m not sure I get why you seem to think so highly of a guy that had so much to do with curtailing NYC residents’ rights concerning concealed carry(?)

  12. Balzac

    In JRH’s first post he seems to claim libertarians ought not to favor strong law enforcement, because it’s provided by a large government agency. JRH: you seem to have conflated two things. Our federal government has elephantiasis, is bankrupting itself by promising to redistribute income, and needs to reform by shrinking. This is completely different than the local government providing domestic security and enforcing the law, which is the FIRST among the proper government functions. See the difference?

    Also, based on no credible evidence, you simply claim “reasonable suspicion actually means something more than being a young black man”. Gee, there’s an Obama-style straw man. Please identify one law enforcement official who thinks reasonable suspicion means being black.

    • AJ

      Balzac, while the strawman tactic is one of the Left’s favorite tools, in this intance, it’s just not the case. And while I’m almost certain, with the exception of Boston, you won’t find a single police officer to admit that reasonable suspicion means being black, the numbers would indicate otherwise.

      “…Last year, the NYPD made more stops of young black men than there are young black men in the city’s population. 158,406 young black men live in New York City and the NYPD made 168,126 stops….”

      …Young black and Latino men account for 4.7% of NYC’s population but 41.6% of the stops in 2011….

      …“Of those frisked in 2011, a weapon was found just 1.9% of the time…”

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/17/stop-and-frisk-by-the-numbers/

      In that last excerpt, we find that weapons were found 1.9 % of the time. That’s like drag netting a beach after chumming and comming up with only a couple of shiners. Hell, I’ll bet if you surprise, random stop-and-frisked all of the JUDGES in NYC at least 1.9 % of them would be in possession of cocaine.

  13. AJ

    As they used to like to say a lot in the Superman comic books: how ironic.The argument you guys are making in support of “stop and frisk” is the same argument libtards are making for taking away your guns. Wake up! If you don’t stand up for other’s rights, you will surely lose your own.

  14. FlyAngler

    There are three legs holding up the gun control lobby’s rhetorical stool:
    “Assault” weapons
    Magazine capacity limits
    The gunshot loophole (ie the 40% meme)

    The WaPo truth squad has pretty much lowered the bar to 30% and Lott thinks it is less thahalf that once you account for intra family transfers.

    In his WSJ interview, Bratton say he supports the AWB and the mag limits but then goes on to say they are only symbolic. He goes further to say that nothing can be done retrospectively. Blah blah blah. Should we really be passing Constitution-threateni laws to send a message but that won’t do any good?

    As for Mag capacity, there is along treatise at this link that should be must reading for anyone discussing mag bans:

    http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/gun-violence-magazine-capacity-part-one.

  15. GPD Folk

    Anon…1259pm…that was a long time ago…Binney Park?

    • Ah, remember Binney Park in, what, the late 60s? It became the Amsterdam of Fairfield County, with drug dealers coming up from the city and drew every hippie’ meth/horse addict from as far away as Bridgeport. I wasn’t entirely opposed to drug use back then but I wouldn’t go near the place, let alone parents with children. Bad place. No fan of the police in 1968, even I thought the crackdown and closure at sunset was overdue.
      Now if they’d just address the freakin’ geese with the same fervor – had the hippies defecated on the park’s lawns in the same quantity as the geese do now, they’d have been rounded up and dispatched even sooner.

      • AJ

        I was living in NYC at the time, but I do vaguely remember hippies hanging out at Binney Park, and I do remember them imposing a curfew because I wondered could the yutes hanging in the park be causing that much of a ruckus? It didn’t seem so whenever I drove by. I cut my hair short in 1970 because there were just too many chronically unemployable people walking around with long hair, whose response to everything and anything was yeaaah maaann, like they were in some Cheech and Chong movie, and I did not want to be first impression mistaken for a typecasted idiot.

        Back when I had long hair I was stopped only once by the police, as I was coming out of the Farms Road reservoir, had a pleasant 60 second chat with the guy and was on my way. But I think we’ve had this conversation before, CF, about how driving a Volkwagon Rabbit can be walking around with a kick me sign on your back. Its true, I’ve seen it happen because of nothing more than the Rabbit before. All I can say if someone is somehow attracting a lot of unwanted attention towards themselves is that life on the personal level’s a bitch, and you should go to the persona link that I put up several posts ago, so here it is again, it could be your start — anyone out there — to not having things like this happen anymore: http://www.kenwilber.com/editor/nbshadow.pdf