she deserved it

I don't think moving it to China is/was such a good idea.



/e



Video can't be true. Presidents are no allowed to drive on public highways.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 9 2018 04:22am

Trump says Chicago needs 'stop-and-frisk' <--- Video

https://www.reuters.com/video/2018/10/08/trump-says-chicago-needs-stop-and-frisk?videoId=471558226&videoChannel=1003

aka violate the civil liberties and privacy of black people that cops feel like messing with on that given day under circumstances that do no warrant search

causing more hostility, escalation, and opportunity for abuse and violence

Aka, stop the violence.

Broken windows, compstat and stop & frisk didn't lead to more hostility, escalation and opportunity for abuse and violence in NYC. It led to a safer city, and crime plummeted. Until it reached a tolerable enough level that the people and their government decided to drop Stop & Frisk and conveniently dispose of it in the judiciary as a no-contest out that avoided any political fallout. Yet here we are, 5 years after De Blasio won and Floyd v NYC ended Stop & Frisk and 7 years since the peak usage- yet hostility and violence towards the police has skyrocketed. The BLM movement started around the same time NYC finally laid down the last remnants of Giuliani's tough-on-crime era, and we're still hovering around what's either the peak or a continuing escalation in anti-police narrative.

Stop and frisk and racial profiling are about a balance between our constitution protecting us from the government and our government protecting us from criminals.
When crime is rampant, tough measures sacrifice some of those liberties in the name of security and deal with the problem. When crime is gone, we can afford our principles. That's just the nature of society. And when shit really hits the fan, we suspend habeus corpus and declare martial law and Lincoln tells Taney 'molon labe motherfucker'.

Chicago has let crime get really bad. Chirag is in desperate times and requires desperate measures.

More violation of the Constitution.

Logic doesn't work on these people.

Nixon was right at Kent State.

I don't care if you're white purple black or green. If the green people are more statistically likley to commit crime they will receive more patdowns.

If I'm statistically more likley to be shot on one street than the other I go on the other, I don't care what color people are on x street.

Sorry that's a case of profiling but that's just how it is.

If my job is to protect and serve ill statistically have better odds of doing so by targeting groups with a higher tendency to be involved in criminal activity would I not? I mean it's a pat down were talking about. I get a free one once a month at the airport it's great.

Now If you're arresting someone with no evidence, than yes that is very wrong.

This post was edited by SBD on Oct 9 2018 11:13am