Stop-and-Frisk: A Necessary Evil? (Norwood, Hope: apartments, renters, insurance)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My sentiments exactly. Some people just don't know when they have a good thing. Low crime apparently is just too much of a problem.
yeah silly me
don't think so
S & F is a terrible practice, and needs to be banned.
they need to find out where all these guns are coming from and how all these people are getting them, not s & f every person walking down a street, that is pure BS, and I dont buy it.
S & F is a terrible practice, and needs to be banned.
they need to find out where all these guns are coming from and how all these people are getting them, not s & f every person walking down a street, that is pure BS, and I dont buy it.
come up with a better plan.
The guns are legal in other states. So they just go wherever and buy them. So clearly, NYC making it extra hard to get a gun does not work.
To the extent crime has gone down in the city, there are other factors. The fact that a lot of poor people use birth control and abortions and have less unwanted kids. The fact that you don't get welfare benefits as easily as you used too. And the fact the crack cocaine epidemic is over.
And I seriously doubt people are worried about crime. Stop and Frisk was really used in order to claim that they "cleaned" up the city in ways they hadn't. The true consequence of the ending of stop and frisk would be a real estate drop in certain "neighborhoods" in transition.
Its not the job of the government to protect the real estate value of landlords, and I was happy to see the federal courts slap down Stop and Frisk.
And I do remember the Dinkins era. Nobody bothered me when I went out on the street. So I don't see those days as so bad. Oh, rents were cheaper too.
And I seriously doubt people are worried about crime. Stop and Frisk was really used in order to claim that they "cleaned" up the city in ways they hadn't. The true consequence of the ending of stop and frisk would be a real estate drop in certain "neighborhoods" in transition.
Its not the job of the government to protect the real estate value of landlords, and I was happy to see the federal courts slap down Stop and Frisk.
And I do remember the Dinkins era. Nobody bothered me when I went out on the street. So I don't see those days as so bad. Oh, rents were cheaper too.
I agree. I was out and about those days also, all thru the crack wars etc. Worked in the city, took the train from Times square, never had a problem.
You guys don't know New york be hideing their crime. Then as soon as they outlaw stop and frisk they are gonna report all of the crimes to make it seem like stop and frisk was preventing crime. But can we all just agree to disagree???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
