Author Topic: Joe Biden losing it  (Read 3269 times)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2020, 12:32:15 PM »
So if a mayor instituted random searches for safe gun storage, would you think it amusing that the politician would then have to do an apology tour for reducing the number of gun deaths and injuries?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2020, 12:38:39 PM »
So if a mayor instituted random searches for safe gun storage, would you think it amusing that the politician would then have to do an apology tour for reducing the number of gun deaths and injuries?

It seems to me that this is about a different thing than just trying to poke holes in someone's past. NYC is a place with many liberal, but also many conservative people. Politicians there can't just cater to the left-leaning in the population, as as in the past NYC had a reputation for being somewhat dangerous a tough on crime position is not limited to Republican mayors there. This is actually a good thing, insofar as the positions of the mayor are going to reflect the needs of the entire city in some sense, rather than to merely reflect the left vs right politics game that we see on the national level. As a result, a D mayor may well have had some policies in effect that we stereotypically think of as R-oriented. That in itself is not a problem; the problem is that on the national level everyone has to play the fake "appeal to my extremist base" game and rarely even tries to sound like a normal person who has to take care of the entire country.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2020, 12:44:11 PM »
The point is that a policy based on violating the rights of people of color is being framed "lowering the crime rate." Granted, civil rights violations aimed at people of color is an R-oriented position these days but I doubt that's what you were going for.

ETA: Nor do I think you were trying to imply that being free from unreasonable search is an extremist position.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2020, 02:40:11 PM »
The point is that a policy based on violating the rights of people of color is being framed "lowering the crime rate." Granted, civil rights violations aimed at people of color is an R-oriented position these days but I doubt that's what you were going for.

ETA: Nor do I think you were trying to imply that being free from unreasonable search is an extremist position.

The home search example was out of bounds in comparison to stop and frisk however. Although it's funny you should mention that, as I seem to recall the State of Washington's Democrats actually wanting to do almost exactly that. (Require both registration of firearms, and "regular inspection" of where the weapon is stored). Back on point on the home example, your house is house, it exists on private property that you control rights to. When you move into a public venue, you no longer have exclusive rights, and it is in that public venue where stop and frisk was in play.

Now getting back to stop and frisk, the racial component is problematic and obviously present. However, there is a valid reason for it that has little to do with race on it's face. The results even validate that to a large degree(as crime did drop considerably).

("Random") Violent Crime is not a hallmark of upper income brackets, when it does involve one of them as the perpetrator, it's typically not random at all. The more "random" type attacks are usually the domain of those in the lowest and lower income brackets. As such, probability would dictate that the offender is going to be a member of one of the lower income brackets. So far so good.

Except we then hit the problem where race has been used as a proxy for economic status. Which is where the problem existed, that you then have the additional burden that minorities in NYC comprise a majority of the poor, and it becomes near impossible to assert the practice isn't racially motivated even if it is fact not racial at all--because the majority of poor belong to minority groups, every study is going to find a majority of people searched to be members of minority groups, and if the crimes triggering stop and frisk happened in "an ethnic area" the odds of a white person even being present to be among the frisked drops even further, further skewing the numbers.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2020, 03:06:18 PM »
You're suggesting that poor people have fewer protections against unreasonable searches because poor people tend to be violent (or at least violent in public spaces?).

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2020, 03:20:46 PM »
I find it bizarre and hypocritical of those on the right to call out Bloomberg's prior comments on the utility of stop and frisk, when they supported the policy themselves.  Calling him out for changing away from it is totally reasonable.

I did find one thing he was quoted as saying as particularly on point, if you're trying to stop gun violence in high crime areas, the best thing you can do is convince people not to carry illegal guns.  Stop and frisk was a harassment but it was directly targeted at convincing people in areas with high gun crime rates that carrying the gun may get them arrested.  It caused them to leave the gun home, and that eliminated the split second decision to pull the gun because of a slight and start firing. nothing really stops intentional murder, but this went a long way to stopping impulsive ones.

I thought it was a good policy.

I'm not sure I understand the angst it caused well enough.  Are people really happier living in high crime areas where the people inclined to commit crimes of violence routinely carry illegal guns?  Seems to me that the vast majority of people, whether black or white, are good people who deserve to be protected from crime, and this was an effective part.  It seems funny to me that the left is completely cool with violating the 2nd Amendment with super restrictive gun control laws that don't actually make anyone safer, but flip out over this borderline violation of the 4th Amendment that did.

I mean, we all understand that we may get searched at an airport because there's a risk of threat on planes (even though, it's no where near the risk it was), yet the idea of getting patted down in an area where violent crime is a daily occurrence isn't okay?

How exactly are you proposing to bring safety to those neighborhoods?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2020, 03:37:46 PM »
Poor people and minorities have fewer protections against violent crime, disproportionately so. It's also a fact that the perpetrators and victims are statistically mirrored, demographically. This isn't about rich, non-minority people looking to keep their neighborhoods safe.

There's no easy or pleasant solution to the problem, but targeted policing (not to be confused with bad cops behaving badly) seems like common sense.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2020, 03:43:35 PM »
I must have missed the line in the Constitution where you're allowed to violate people's rights to keep them safe.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2020, 05:38:47 PM »
Stop and Frisk was successful under Giuliani, as was stopping the windshield cleaners who preyed on cars stopped at a traffic light. These were proved to work and the people supported it.

However; the only truly good law that might stop attacks on schools, churches, and other places is to outlaw gun-free zones. ...Might as well put up a sign that says: "Criminals can use their guns here with no fear of anyone stopping them."

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2020, 05:54:07 PM »
BTW: I worked at the Criminal Justice Institute in Detroit for awhile as the Senior Art Director putting together training programs to teach those in the Criminal Justice genre how to respond to emergencies and standard everyday practices. With stop-and-frisk, there was required to be a reason to enact it. Many police who we didn't train, who were trained by the State Police Academy, instead, had many standard loop-holes to allow them to stop and investigate almost anyone. If you have a license-plate frame from the auto dealer you bought your car from, you are legally violating the law and can be stopped. There is lots of stuff like that which can be used. In the movie, "Porky's", Alex Karras, as the bad sheriff, just knocked out a tail light with his flashlight to give him a reason to stop a car.

People like Bloomberg just enact stupid laws, like banning plastic straws or Big-gulps. License to tyrannize.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2020, 11:14:50 PM »
A bit late, but as I was out of town I'll reply to this anyhow:

The point is that a policy based on violating the rights of people of color is being framed "lowering the crime rate." Granted, civil rights violations aimed at people of color is an R-oriented position these days but I doubt that's what you were going for.

I think the point is that political expediency - which changes all the time due to new fads and currents in expectation - ends up trumping any real results in the past. The fact that you think this particular result was racist is fine, but also beside the point. ScottF's point is that Bloomberg has to now apologize for something not because he repents it but because it's against the current fashion for Democrats to approve of such actions. ScottF, in pointing out the irony, was I think adding something to this observation, which was that in addition to having to flipflop on his past position to appease people now, he also by coincidence repented something which was in fact good. You can dispute whether it was good but IMO that's sort of beside the point.

Quote
ETA: Nor do I think you were trying to imply that being free from unreasonable search is an extremist position.

It's not a question of extremism. Or rather, if it is then the extremism is in the demands made of political correctness in opposition to positions that in the past Democrats would have been fine with. And if left-leaning people change their minds then so be it, but it's absurd for someone to apologize for something which those same people possibly even liked at the time. Tell him not to make such a policy again, but don't criticize the thing that was ok before. Now as this was even controversial at the time it's not so simple as that, but even so my point is that neither side actually would like a culture where any policy or statement made in the past that is no longer fashionable could roast your career.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2020, 12:58:21 AM »
Let's be clear, stop and frisk was never considered 'ok'. It was very controversial at the time.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2020, 08:54:36 AM »
The people I'm seeing draw attention to this detail of Bloomberg's history have consistently been against stop and frisk. If there's been a change, it's that they aren't being ignored.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2020, 10:50:13 AM »
Let's be clear, stop and frisk was never considered 'ok'. It was very controversial at the time.

Wasn't ending stop and frisk one of the key campaign promises of de Blasio?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2020, 11:25:38 AM »
I must have missed the line in the Constitution where you're allowed to violate people's rights to keep them safe.

You've said several versions of this, but I want to be clear.  Stop and Frisk was Constitutional, even if it was controversial.  It was based on the well understood rules (as developed by Supreme Court cases) that allow for the police to frisk anyone (for weapons and safety) that they are required to come in contact with in connection with their official duties.  The actual policy was to require them to interact with people in certain neighborhoods (ie, to come in contact with in connection with their official duties) and to require them to conduct the frisks. 

The only case that said otherwise was a low level federal case that when deBlaisio took over he refused to appeal.  It's certainly possible the SC would have reversed it's own precedent, or found a way to distinguish it's use as a sword instead of a shield, but it definitely fit within the actual precedents at law.  (In way, it was a very "Democrat-like" use of technicality to create a result that was probably never intended).

But fact is, it was very very likely to have been upheld in the SC, or at worst only slightly limited (as they have no intention of undoing the precedents allowing officers to frisk people for weapons when they are required to interact with them).  Ergo, they are almost certainly Constitutional - even if we could make a reasonable case they shouldn't be.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2020, 11:30:13 AM »
Let's be clear, stop and frisk was never considered 'ok'. It was very controversial at the time.

Wasn't ending stop and frisk one of the key campaign promises of de Blasio?

If stop and frisk had never been a thing would it still be considered racist to have a disproportionately high police presence in the highest crime areas? Or is equal police presence/action in all areas the only way to ensure minorities aren't being unfairly targeted?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2020, 01:04:11 PM »
The general idea behind the Supreme Court decision is that stopping and frisking is fine, but that racial profiling is still wrong. It becomes very difficult to prove racial profiling, however.'

Quote
The number of stop-and-frisks by the NYPD plunged from a high of 685,000 in 2011 to only 10,861 in 2017. They have continued to decline under Mayor de Blasio’s tenure, though the initial and largest drop occurred prior to his election.

The dramatic drop in recorded stop-and-frisks is great news. Unfortunately, the remaining stops still amount to roughly 30 per day, and NYPD audits have found that officers fail to record them up to 73 percent of the time.

If you look at violent crime in NYC, if stop and frisk was critical to the drop in murders and violent crime, we would have expected a rise after 2011, right? But that hasn't happened.

NYC collects these statistics in order to measure disparity, and to try to identify profiling. We should also understand that the cops may not have racial intent, but they are impacted by unconscious bias. Gladwell also talks about this in his book Blink, how snap decisions can be influenced by prejudice.

Quote
But when then-Public Advocate Bill de Blasio released a report in May of 2013 highlighting the need for stop-and-frisk reform, he noted “the likelihood a stop of an African-American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped.” In spite of dramatic reductions in the number of stops, people of color were still disproportionately targeted in 2016, and were still less likely to be found with weapons citywide. In Manhattan, black individuals who were stopped only had a weapon 6.3 percent of the time, compared to 11 percent of white individuals.

This suggests the cops "hunches" are biased. Then there's this.

Quote
Are these stops happening in precincts with higher major felony crime rates?4 Nope – more aggressive precincts have the same major felony crime rate per capita as in other precincts (12.2 per 1,000 local residents).

So to recap, they are not particularly good at targeting neighborhoods, individuals, or weapons violations. They are pretty good at using stop and frisk to catch people on low-level non-violent offenses - disproportionately.

An Analysis of Stop-and-Frisk Policing in NYC

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2020, 02:26:29 PM »
If stop and frisk had never been a thing would it still be considered racist to have a disproportionately high police presence in the highest crime areas? Or is equal police presence/action in all areas the only way to ensure minorities aren't being unfairly targeted?

It's a catch 22 ScottF, and it's racist either way.  Too few cops and you're a racist that leaves brown people to die, too many and you're a racist that incarcerates minorities for the crime of being brown. 

If you look at violent crime in NYC, if stop and frisk was critical to the drop in murders and violent crime, we would have expected a rise after 2011, right? But that hasn't happened.

Actually I think you should take a closer look.  https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/crime-statistics/historical.page.  Specifically look at the category break downs of the PDFs showing trends.  Murders are down, but rapes, felony sex crimes and felony assault are all up.  In fact, the real trend is that crimes with financial intent are down  (you know like burglary and theft), which is unlikely be a result of anything De Blasio actually did.  You may also note things like a HUGE drop in drug possession charges, which is not because NY'ers are using less drugs, but because De Blasio ended much of the enforcement.

So, yeah, total numbers are down, but it looks to me like the absolute numbers of the violent crimes are up and what the record really shows is just lax enforcement (which is why the streets in NY no longer feel safe to residents).


Quote
Quote
But when then-Public Advocate Bill de Blasio released a report in May of 2013 highlighting the need for stop-and-frisk reform, he noted “the likelihood a stop of an African-American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped.” In spite of dramatic reductions in the number of stops, people of color were still disproportionately targeted in 2016, and were still less likely to be found with weapons citywide. In Manhattan, black individuals who were stopped only had a weapon 6.3 percent of the time, compared to 11 percent of white individuals.

This suggests the cops "hunches" are biased.

If you follow Bloomberg's logic, it actually just suggests that not enough stop and frisks occurred in the white community to penetrate to the common knowledge that carrying a weapon creates a high risk you get caught.  It takes a while for "common knowledge" to filter back out of a system (this stuff is rarely front brain thinking).

Quote
Quote
Are these stops happening in precincts with higher major felony crime rates?4 Nope – more aggressive precincts have the same major felony crime rate per capita as in other precincts (12.2 per 1,000 local residents).

So to recap, they are not particularly good at targeting neighborhoods, individuals, or weapons violations.

And how does the map line up with violent felonies instead of "major" felonies?  How do the targeted precincts line up with those that a history of violence on the streets?

Quote
They are pretty good at using stop and frisk to catch people on low-level non-violent offenses - disproportionately.

That is true.  They caught a lot of drug offenses using the policy.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2020, 02:30:02 PM »
By the way, this passage from your stop and frisk analysis link is stunning and not in a way that helps your cause:

Quote
Nearly 76 percent of people subjected to a recorded stop were innocent (neither arrested nor issued a summons), according to the most recent detailed data for 2016. While that figure is down from a high of 88 percent in 2011, it still means that three out of every four people that have experienced the trauma of a stop-and-frisk have done nothing wrong.

I'm literally stunned that 1 in 4 people frisked were arrested or issued a summons.  That to me completely justifies it, and that's only on 10k.  The fact that 12% were on over 600k is still an incredible rate, and that would have been when people were most on their guard.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2020, 02:35:47 PM »
So cops can harass three people so long as they can find a reason to arrest the fourth?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2020, 02:45:18 PM »
Lol.  Sure, that's great way to look at it. 

This is why we can't have nice things, only seeing what we want to see.  "Research" written to defend an argument rather than to find out what actually happened isn't worth much.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2020, 02:47:18 PM »
So cops can harass three people so long as they can find a reason to arrest the fourth?

I've gotta be honest, I'd rather be subjected to a periodic airport-style frisk than to have to be surrounded by officers sporting machine guns every time I go to Grand Central. When it comes to measures to prevent violent crime, a frisk is annoying, but walking through a military barracks to take a train is actually scary.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2020, 02:56:40 PM »
Nice things like having cops harass people of color so crime metrics look good?

I still find it curious that you're using results based justifications for what's clearly a violation of people's civil rights. I would have thought there was nothing more abhorrent to American conservatives than "papers, please"-style policing but here we are. I guess they have no problems trading the freedom of other people for their security.

I've gotta be honest, I'd rather be subjected to a periodic airport-style frisk than to have to be surrounded by officers sporting machine guns every time I go to Grand Central. When it comes to measures to prevent violent crime, a frisk is annoying, but walking through a military barracks to take a train is actually scary.

These aren't airport-style frisks, though. They're arbitrary and targeted at people just going about their business. They put you and your property at risk for further abuses of police authority.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2020, 03:01:14 PM »
These aren't airport-style frisks, though. They're arbitrary and targeted at people just going about their business. They put you and your property at risk for further abuses of police authority.

I'm not actually advocating that this was a good policy. I don't really know either way. I was just trying to clarify what I saw as a misreading of ScottF's point, which was that even Democrats have to backpedal on policies that were relevant in a particular time and place but that look bad on the national stage. Putting aside the issue of stop and frisk itself, do you really disagree that national politics turns everything into a dog and pony show, as compared with regular local governance?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2020, 03:08:38 PM »
Specifically look at the category break downs of the PDFs showing trends.  Murders are down, but rapes, felony sex crimes and felony assault are all up. 

I'm looking but I don't see it.

Rapes are listed at in the surge year of 2011 and the beginning of when stop and frisk was tapered off.

2013 and 2014 are lower, but in the same ballpark. There's a big jump from 2017 to 2018, but I doubt that's the effect of stop and frisk. It's much more likely that there are just more people reporting that crime. Felony assault finished most recently at 20698, this is up from 2011. But note that 2011 itself had a lot more than the preceding several years. Glancing at a chart isn't as good as calculating correlation between crime numbers and frisks, and controlling for additional factors.

There's this analysis:

Quote
NYPD’s deployment of extra police to high crime neighborhoods contributed far more to the crime reduction than the use of stop, question, and frisk. Research on the NYPD’s program of Operation Impact found that extra police deployed to high crime areas in New York was a major factor in the crime decline: a 12% to 15% reduction. The additional use of stop, question, and frisk made almost no difference. The stops only had a detectable impact on crime when the stops were based on probable cause, and these kinds of stops were very rare. Other research by Weisburd and colleagues also showed that stop, question, and frisk practices had only small associations with crime reduction (on the order 2%). And this study did not measure the effects of stops over and above increased officer deployment.

Sources:

Quote
MacDonald J, Fagan J, Geller A (2016) The Effects of Local Police Surges on Crime and Arrests in New York City. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0157223. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157223

Weisburd D, Wooditch A, Weisburd S, Yang SM. Do Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices Deter Crime?Criminology & Public Policy. 2015 Nov 1.

All Bloomberg had to do was add more cops to the patrol, that was the part that worked. I think that is an acceptable practice, deployment of resources to high crime areas was clearly a good move. I'm still not sure I'd want to support the practice even if it could be traced to major impacts, but that's far from proven as it is.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #75 on: February 18, 2020, 03:10:35 PM »
I'm not actually advocating that this was a good policy. I don't really know either way. I was just trying to clarify what I saw as a misreading of ScottF's point, which was that even Democrats have to backpedal on policies that were relevant in a particular time and place but that look bad on the national stage. Putting aside the issue of stop and frisk itself, do you really disagree that national politics turns everything into a dog and pony show, as compared with regular local governance?

Only if one bears in mind that the "dog and pony show" is often taking local government to task for things they get away with due to a lower level of scrutiny. Sure, there's a performative aspect to being a national politician but I don't think that's a good reason to avoid criticizing decisions they made while they weren't in such a high profile role. Though Mayor of New York hits national prominence fairly regularly despite being a supposedly local office.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #76 on: February 18, 2020, 03:12:03 PM »
By the way, here's a set of the crime statistics that go back further (to when Guiliani initially started Stop and Frisk), funny how the rest start after 2000 (and thereby mask the giant drop).  http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

And here's what G had to say about Bloomberg's use of the policy versus his own.  If you believe him, which I acknowledge many don't, Bloomberg went off the rails that G had established to keep it within reason.  Given, that G's program averaged 100k a year, and Bloomberg's went over 600k that's pretty good circumstantial evidence that he may  have a point (and not at all flattering to Bloomberg's new stance).  https://www.foxnews.com/media/rudy-giuliani-bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-policy

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #77 on: February 18, 2020, 03:17:26 PM »
These aren't airport-style frisks, though. They're arbitrary and targeted at people just going about their business. They put you and your property at risk for further abuses of police authority.

I'm not actually advocating that this was a good policy. I don't really know either way. I was just trying to clarify what I saw as a misreading of ScottF's point, which was that even Democrats have to backpedal on policies that were relevant in a particular time and place but that look bad on the national stage. Putting aside the issue of stop and frisk itself, do you really disagree that national politics turns everything into a dog and pony show, as compared with regular local governance?

I'm just not seeing this as an example of "backpedal". In 2012, NYC poll said this:

Quote
Overall approval for stop and frisk was at 45 percent, while disapproval was at 50 percent.

These policies always looked bad, including on a local stage of the five boroughs.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #78 on: February 18, 2020, 03:23:31 PM »
I'm just not seeing this as an example of "backpedal". In 2012, NYC poll said this:

The backpedaler in this case is Bloomberg, out of necessity.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Biden losing it
« Reply #79 on: February 18, 2020, 03:54:57 PM »
Maybe he just had a genuine change of heart.  ;D