Hermit
Cantankerous grump
Link to a site that proves the poorly formatted student project wrong.Your big source for this claim is a student project for some class. A poorly formatted one at that.
Link to a site that proves the poorly formatted student project wrong.Your big source for this claim is a student project for some class. A poorly formatted one at that.
There is no hard cutoff age, except that Gascon made it one. Under California law minors 14-17 may be tried as adults. In that range, it's a discretion call, and should be dependent on circumstances.Using your logic, whatever the cutoff age for prosecution as an adult is set, gangs will use children under the cutoff age. So is the solution no cutoff age - prosecute all children who commit heinous crimes as adults?
While the WaPo article I found it in makes the opposite point (not very surprising given it's WaPo), this graph indicates an increase in violent crime and murder following the end of stop&frisk. While correlation does not prove causation, of course, it at least shows correlation, contrary to Philip Bump's claim. It is also very different than the graph used by those students that hides the bump, whether accidentally or intentionally.Link to a site that proves the poorly formatted student project wrong.
I don't. I would say most of the people on here don't. I would not be surprised if you were the only one who does.Do you have a local store you often visit and know most the customers who go in and out by name with many of them having felony warrants out and/or other miscellaneous charges?
Can't say I've ever had the pleasure of such an interaction. Why don't they just take care of their warrants? Seems an exhausting way to live.There is a general fear of the police amongst these people. Have you ever met a person that one second they are talking to you and then the next second they are full throttle sprinting before you even see the police car?
I have wondered that. Young black males in "ghettos across America" are much more likely to be killed by other young black males than by police. By a wide margin. Of course, the latter can arrest them, which is a difference.I doubt you ever wondered why young black males in ghettos across America are not afraid to shoot or get shot by their own people yet as soon as a patrol car rolls around the corner, everyone cuts ass like a skunk raided the picnic.
If we go by numbers of bodies, the police are way WORSE at shooting than they are.It's not like the police are THAT much better at shooting than they are.
You are also GOATS at committing crime. For example 5-6x the homicide rate compared with whites. That's a big difference.I mean year over year we're still the GOATS at being incarcerated.
Many cities have been. Look at the non-prosecutions of most 2020 rioters. What little prosecution there has been has mostly been federal. And even that has resulted in slaps on the wrist (like essentially no jail time for firebombing a police vehicle in NYC). Compare that with vigorous prosecutions of 1/6 rioters. It's like night and day.There has been a decline since 2006 though. Ya think that has to do with cities being soft on Antifa & BLM?
I think it is mostly that. They do not plan to get away with it. They know the shooting will result in prison or death.Edit: Sorry which brings me back to mass shootings. The whole reason I just went there is these mass shooters in many cases don't seem to fear being seen in broad daylight. And it's not solely because they don't care to live to see the next day.
What do you mean they have no fear of the police? Some get shot by police, others are arrested. Again by police.Their aim is to do as much damage as possible and getting caught by the police would get in the way of that. They have no fear of the police. There is nothing in the way of anyone who wakes up one day and says "fuck it, imma go shoot YOU KIDS!".
That's because he wants to deal tomorrow. School shooters who post their plans online do not plan to get away with it.If I ever asked a drug dealer in my hood to post what he's fixing to do on the internet he'd never want to talk to me again.
It's a false dichotomy. If police committed crimes they should be prosecuted (btw, I do not think police who executed a duly signed warrant and returned fire committed any crime). And so should people in the #BLM movement who have been destroying cities. Including those like Warlord Raz who occupied entire city blocks for weeks but were never prosecuted by fauxgressive DAs.For example instead of saying Briana Taylor died because the police committed a crime, we say, "BLM destroyed cities!".
Several things wrong with this. The bunch of idiots were not apart of the #BLM movement, they are an integral part of it.The hell does a bunch of idiots exploiting a movement to get free shit and cause destruction
Those are two separate things. This does not excuse actions taken by #BLM in the least.have to do with a women getting killed by police because they straight up lied to a judge to get a search warrant?
You are right on that. Different etiologies and they require different approaches.Same thing with mass shootings, instead of putting our heads together to see how we can prevent law abiding lunatics from getting guns while at the same time not prevent law abiding semi lunatic Americans from getting them we scream "Criminals don't care about gun laws!". As if the criminals doing mass shootings are the same criminals as home invaders, car jackers or a bunch of gang affiliated niggas shooting each other on the streets. They are not.
How young does a gang murderer have to be before they should not be tried as adult?There is no hard cutoff age, except that Gascon made it one. Under California law minors 14-17 may be tried as adults. In that range, it's a discretion call, and should be dependent on circumstances.Using your logic, whatever the cutoff age for prosecution as an adult is set, gangs will use children under the cutoff age. So is the solution no cutoff age - prosecute all children who commit heinous crimes as adults?
Things like gang murders warrant prosecution as adult, even if the murderer is 17.
Does that apply to all people or just to people you dislike? If cops do those things, are they also guilty of crimes?I’m unaware of any Anglo concept of freedom that lets a person assault, murder, rape, steal, or openly defecate.
WaPo agrees with the poorly formatted student project for good reasons.While the WaPo article I found it in makes the opposite point (not very surprising given it's WaPo), this graph indicates an increase in violent crime and murder following the end of stop&frisk. While correlation does not prove causation, of course, it at least shows correlation, contrary to Philip Bump's claim.Link to a site that proves the poorly formatted student project wrong.
Very different? Is your gross distortion accidental or intentional?It is also very different than the graph used by those students that hides the bump, whether accidentally or intentionally.
Politicisation, racial sensitivity and leftness are not evidence that the statistics and the charts based on them are out of whack. Certainly not sufficiently to say that contrary to the poorly formatted student project or WaPo's leftist article the stop-to-frisk operations made a big difference to New York City's crime rates.The problem with issues like stop&frisk or crime policies in general is that it is highly politicized and also racially sensitive. And the mainstream media and universities (esp. social "science" departments) tend to skew left.
Who do you count as a "rioter"?Look at the non-prosecutions of most 2020 rioters.
Defenders of stop&frisk: are you willing to accept that for yourselves?The problem with issues like stop&frisk or crime policies in general is that it is highly politicized and also racially sensitive.
What a giveaway of one's political orientation.And the mainstream media and universities (esp. social "science" departments) tend to skew left.
You don't have freedom to steal other people's stuff (even if your excuse is "how he gonna get his money"). You do not have the right to burn buildings, or riot, or even block public thoroughfares even if you are really mad about something.It's a thing called "freedom".
Well, no hypocrisy here, then.Typical Elixirian straw man.
I would say the simply factual message "juveniles aren't adults" ought to be the take-home on that one.What message is sent by giving a light sentence to a gang murderer?
Gascón stops effort to prosecute juvenile gang murderer as adult; victim’s family outraged
Of course. If a SFPD officer defecates on the streets of San Francisco, Chesa's successor should charge him too.Does that apply to all people or just to people you dislike? If cops do those things, are they also guilty of crimes?
As I said, it should be a well-considered discretion based on the circumstances of the case. California law allows youths of 14 to be charged as adults, and I definitely think some of them should be.How young does a gang murderer have to be before they should not be tried as adult?
In a lot of cases, there is a lag time between cause and effect. Not everything happens immediately.WaPo agrees with the poorly formatted student project for good reasons.
1) The uptick in violent crime and murder happened 3 years after the peak of stop-to-frisk operations. There is no correlation.
That's where a good comparative analysis would be handy. What about violent crime vs. national trends? Vs. cities with no S&F.2) The drop in violent crime and murder while stop-to-frisk operations is negligible, and there is no correlation either.
Fag end? Homophobic much?3) Both the drop in violent crime and murder while stop-to-frisk operations were vigorously executed and uptick at its fag end are dwarfed by the by the magnitude of the drop in violent crime and murder rates in the years preceding Bloomberg's mistake.
Students' graph cuts off before an uptick after BdB took over. I would say that is significant.Very different? Is your gross distortion accidental or intentional?
I am not saying that S&F made a big difference to NYC's crime rates. I am just saying that what I have seen so far does not convince me it had no effect because of bias.Politicisation, racial sensitivity and leftness are not evidence that the statistics and the charts based on them are out of whack. Certainly not sufficiently to say that contrary to the poorly formatted student project or WaPo's leftist article the stop-to-frisk operations made a big difference to New York City's crime rates.
These guys in Atlanta for example:Who do you count as a "rioter"?
I am a defender of the idea, not necessarily of the particular implementation. I am also a skeptic of the attacks on the policy, as they mostly seem politically motivated.Defenders of stop&frisk: are you willing to accept that for yourselves?
I think academic studies should not skew either left or right.What a giveaway of one's political orientation.
Even if that is true, removing illegal guns still remains a good goal. BdB should have maybe changed the policy, to make it more effective, not simply abolished it.If stop&frisk barely did anything about crime,
Policies should not be "racially selective". Note that whether a policy is racially selective is about whether targets are selected by race, not about whether there is a disparity in outcomes. One can have a racially neutral policy that yields disparate results. The left loves to conflate the two, using the latter as a pretend evidence for the former.then why bother with it? Especially racially selective stop&frisk.
Neither are they children. A 17 year old is much more mature, and much closer to a young adult mindset, than say a 12 year old.I would say the simply factual message "juveniles aren't adults" ought to be the take-home on that one.
It's not about vengeance. It's about recognizing that maturing takes place gradually. It is not a switch that happens when you turn 18.What's the point of laws that recognise the difference between children and adults, if whenever the law is broken by a child, he is arbitrarily re-branded an adult, so that the victims can feel a higher degree of vengeance has been wreaked?
Teenagers are not the same as children. And the law says that it will, depending on the case. It is Gascon unilaterally saying he won't.A society that punishes children as though they were adults is a sick society. A society that says in its own law that it won't, but then does, is both sick and twisted.
Why indeed. Let's just let bilby rule by decree.Why have laws at all?
Note: transfer to the adult system is not an arbitrary decision by the prosecutor. There needs to be a hearing, in front of a judge, and criteria for transfer are spelled out in a law. Additionally, even in the adult system, the judge can take the offender's age into account when sentencing - under adult sentencing guidelines of course. And sometimes that difference is mandated by law. A 17 year old murderer cannot be sentenced to life without parole, but an 18 year old can.Just let bloodthirsty relatives tell the DA what punishments are appropriate, without reference to law at all.
I weep for the poor gang murderers being "bullied" by mean prosecutor dudes. All they did was murder somebody on behalf of a gang. They don't deserve all that ...After all, this particular insanity is applied before the trial - kids aren't just being sentenced as adults, they're being tried as adults. What effect this has on their rights to representation and to be protected from prosecutorial bullying I dread to think.
I agree that it could use some reform, but I think the principle that maturing is process, not a switch, is a sound one. Maybe we need three sets of guidelines: child, juvenile, adult, instead of moving juveniles into one of the two extant camps. The difference between children and teenagers is too big to pretend it does not exist.Your entire system is seriously fucked up, and I am amazed the people haven't risen up in bloody revolution over its massive and systemic injustices.
No.Well, no hypocrisy here, then.