Post: #1

Interesting...

AG Loretta Lynch wants to scale back aggressive enforement of low-level offenses


"Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the NYPD has scaled back its aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses only to see both minor and serious crime rebound. Already cops have backed off public urination and other public nuisance violations, while overlooking outstanding warrants for many other misdemeanor crimes."

Gang sweep nets 1,100 Arrests Nationwide

Sean McElroy, the Acting Special Agent-in-Charge of Houston HSI, said agents and officers with ICE and partnering organizations focused on geographical hotspots and specific gangs in their efforts during the five-week surge.
"We basically went through and looked at "who's worst of worst, and what do we need to get them off the street?" he said. "And how can we do that? Is it, 'are we going to get them on a criminal charge?' Some of them may be illegal aliens, where we can deport them, and others may just be surveillance, crime-of-opportunity type things.'"

Thoughts?

Sounds to me like a cheap way to cut back on the number of incarcerated minorities, then claim the statistics as a victory for civil rights. Will bullying like this in the name of "civil rights" do anything to reduce the amount of crimes committed by minorities in the first place? I can see the idea that keeping a few more young black males out of prison may prevent them from getting into the criminal pattern, but the results just aren't showing in de Blasio's town.

Post: #2

(03-28-2016 06:12 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  Will bullying like this in the name of "civil rights" do anything to reduce the amount of crimes committed by minorities in the first place?

Nope. If anything, this proves why the progressive ideology surrounding "diversity" is a failure.

You do the crime, you do the time.

Punishment for crime is about controlling behavior, so this approach to crime is essentially telling criminals that it is okay to be lawless fucks.

Post: #3

So even though crime is making a comeback, we should ignore it because doing something about it = racism?

When Giuliani started kicking asses and taking names in that city, people got pissed off. His response was basically that anyone who pisses in the street is a piece of shit, and if anything, they should spend a night in jail because they're a piece of shit. He basically said that they were going to treat the city like something you'd care about, and after several years, it worked.

Here's a better article on the subject.

http://toprightnews.com/new-york-will-no...ities-can/

Post: #4

(03-28-2016 06:12 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  I can see the idea that keeping a few more young black males out of prison may prevent them from getting into the criminal pattern, but the results just aren't showing in de Blasio's town.

The argument i've seen pushed by the left is that the cycle of incarceration for stuff like minor offenses builds more serious criminals. The reasoning is that a kid goes to jail for some weed and then gets trained into a hardened criminal in the big house with its gangs and serious criminals.

While there may be some truth to this especially with the drug war it may not be true for other types of offenders. So simply not doing things like stop and frisk and allowing guys to skate on minor violations may in fact encourage the more serious predators amongst the population to ramp up their activity. They realize there's absolutely no penalty up to and beyond a certain point that they will certainly test. The liberals tried their best to hide the fact that stop and frisk actually did work because it was preventative.

A gang sweep is basically them trying to identify the worst offenders after the fact and lock up guys with track records. It's not "bullying" if it actually accomplishes what they say it does. The problem with this move is that it doesn't actually stop ongoing crime rate. It just identifies hard thugs who already have existing track records.

Post: #5

This type of inaction when it comes to law enforcement pisses me off.

Instead of saying, "We're not going to prosecute these crimes" they should remove them from the books if they're serious about eliminating low level crime.

By not prosecuting these crimes, they're still crimes that can be selectively enforced to antagonize someone who the police or DA don't like.

Drugs crimes in particular should be eliminated, but you'll never see that. This is a great way of pandering to minorities while not actually doing anything. "See? We love you unlike those evil Republicans who actually enforce laws!"

This is exactly what they did in the Soviet Union to get rid of dissidents they didn't like.

Post: #6

Meanwhile, criminals are now being paid thousands of dollars a month for "not killing" people. Well, ok, they still get paid even if they kill someone, but what counts is the intent. After all, if you pledge to forswear murder in favor of receiving thousands of dollars of taxpayer money and still kill, your willingness to accept free money in exchange for..nothing..shows a certain amount of good faith and deserves to be rewarded. Or something.

We are beyond Banana Republic gentlemen. If you gave your average Banana Republic reserve currency Fiat you'd end up with a better situation than what we have here.

Post: #7

(03-29-2016 03:38 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  So even though crime is making a comeback, we should ignore it because doing something about it = racism?

When Giuliani started kicking asses and taking names in that city, people got pissed off. His response was basically that anyone who pisses in the street is a piece of shit, and if anything, they should spend a night in jail because they're a piece of shit. He basically said that they were going to treat the city like something you'd care about, and after several years, it worked.

Here's a better article on the subject.

http://toprightnews.com/new-york-will-no...ities-can/

I hadn't heard about the new legal situation last week when I was walking outside my apartment and some homeless dude was peeing into a tree, completely out in the open and not even trying to hide in a corner. Kids were going by (this is near a school). A policeman walked past and I'm thinking "good, this shithead will now get arrested". Cop looks at guy peeing and walks past without breaking his stride.

Me:

So much for law and order.

I've had that scene in my mind all week, I have a nagging feeling that it represents something intrinsic to SJW liberalism in general. Something about pandering to our most base instincts and not being able to tolerate any check or restraint on emotion driven behavior.

Post: #8

I would say this fits into some sort of election cycle.

Say, six months to a year before an election you tell the cops to go easy on the scum. On paper the number of crimes drops. You can claim you're winning. Eventually the crime spikes due to growing disregard for the law and you crack down again, but not until after the election.

Second City Cop on Blogspot provides a great insight into this kind of nonsense. The latest scam is to require police to fill out ridiculous amounts of paperwork for any kind of simple interaction with the public. As a result the police simply turn a blind eye to anything short of murder.

Hey presto! The statisticians come to the conclusion that petty crime has plummeted yet scratch their heads as to why murder and aggravated assault have simultaneously risen.

I have even seen this play out in a major city in Australia, where the police were so slow and useless that people no longer bothered to call them. The politicians trumpeted the apparent vanquishing of crime, despite it being worse than ever.

Post: #9

(03-29-2016 06:14 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Meanwhile, criminals are now being paid thousands of dollars a month for "not killing" people. Well, ok, they still get paid even if they kill someone, but what counts is the intent. After all, if you pledge to forswear murder in favor of receiving thousands of dollars of taxpayer money and still kill, your willingness to accept free money in exchange for..nothing..shows a certain amount of good faith and deserves to be rewarded. Or something.

My god, this is just staggeringly stupid... I had to read the article twice just to make sure it wasn't a prank! What has the world turned into...

Post: #10

Post: #11

(03-29-2016 03:57 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  This type of inaction when it comes to law enforcement pisses me off.

Instead of saying, "We're not going to prosecute these crimes" they should remove them from the books if they're serious about eliminating low level crime.

By not prosecuting these crimes, they're still crimes that can be selectively enforced to antagonize someone who the police or DA don't like.

Drugs crimes in particular should be eliminated, but you'll never see that. This is a great way of pandering to minorities while not actually doing anything. "See? We love you unlike those evil Republicans who actually enforce laws!"

This is exactly what they did in the Soviet Union to get rid of dissidents they didn't like.

I agree, selective law enforcement is more intimidating to me than draconian laws. There are hundreds of laws on the books to charge you with if 'they don't like you'

There was a guy arrested yesterday who was potentially going to go on a shooting rampage. Guess how/what they busted him with "possession of a firearm while having a potential drug dependency" What kind of craziness is that? The definition of trumped up charges.

Post: #12

(03-29-2016 03:49 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:12 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  I can see the idea that keeping a few more young black males out of prison may prevent them from getting into the criminal pattern, but the results just aren't showing in de Blasio's town.

The argument i've seen pushed by the left is that the cycle of incarceration for stuff like minor offenses builds more serious criminals. The reasoning is that a kid goes to jail for some weed and then gets trained into a hardened criminal in the big house with its gangs and serious criminals.

While there may be some truth to this especially with the drug war it may not be true for other types of offenders. So simply not doing things like stop and frisk and allowing guys to skate on minor violations may in fact encourage the more serious predators amongst the population to ramp up their activity. They realize there's absolutely no penalty up to and beyond a certain point that they will certainly test. The liberals tried their best to hide the fact that stop and frisk actually did work because it was preventative.

A gang sweep is basically them trying to identify the worst offenders after the fact and lock up guys with track records. It's not "bullying" if it actually accomplishes what they say it does. The problem with this move is that it doesn't actually stop ongoing crime rate. It just identifies hard thugs who already have existing track records.

It certainly does. If you take the guys doing 60% of the crime in your city and put them in prison, crime is going to drop. The technical term for this is called "Incapacitation". The system frequently fails at rehabilitation, but one thing it does do pretty well is prevent people from robbing people in your streets while they're in prison someplace else.

Post: #13

(03-30-2016 12:12 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  It certainly does. If you take the guys doing 60% of the crime in your city and put them in prison, crime is going to drop. The technical term for this is called "Incapacitation". The system frequently fails at rehabilitation, but one thing it does do pretty well is prevent people from robbing people in your streets while they're in prison someplace else.

I'm not disagreeing that is has no effect at all but i'm considering the longer term outlook. I actually totally agree with locking these fuckers up and throwing away the key.

My general point was the real problem that's not addressed (ever) is the culture which spawns thugs like this to begin with. So even if you lock up the hardest guys a new generation of little shits pops up immediately afterwards to take their place.

Post: #14

(03-29-2016 03:13 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 03:57 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  This type of inaction when it comes to law enforcement pisses me off.

Instead of saying, "We're not going to prosecute these crimes" they should remove them from the books if they're serious about eliminating low level crime.
...

I agree, selective law enforcement is more intimidating to me than draconian laws. There are hundreds of laws on the books to charge you with if 'they don't like you'

They should bring back private prosecution. Anyone should have the power to submit evidence of a crime to a judge and have him put out an arrest warrant. And if the police won't enforce that warrant, private citizens should be able to apply for the right to enforce that specific warrant and bring that person to the court. The same should apply if the perpetrator is a police officer. There was a good case not too long ago in Australia of a man successfully prosecuting a cop who beat him up without justification, and naturally the government got upset and wanted to change the law so people can't do that.

People forget that the law and the police are two separate things. The police are merely a dedicated law enforcement service. That doesn't mean they are the only rightful enforcers of the law. The state want to make it appear otherwise, since increasingly the state makes the law something it does to other people, instead of a system of neutral conflict resolution.

We should go back to stuff like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry

Post: #15

^^^ Precisely.

I don't think we have this in Australia any more but they have it in New Zealand.

Recently some stupid bitch journalist wanted to engineer a beat-up story on guns so she organised to buy one through the mail and faked a gun license number.

Well it turned out she got incredibly lucky and the number was a legitimate one. The gun turned up at her house and she took delivery of it, unboxing it for the cameras with the best "this is how the world ends" face she could muster.

Of course, despite breaking a law that would land anyone else in jail for years, the public prosecutor of that liberal lala land shrugged his shoulders.

Fortunately however the gun store decided to push the issue and had charges pressed against her. While she'll get an open-and-shut case with a wholly suspended sentence it will open her up to a civil case for damages which will be what really fucks her in the end.