Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Hermit]

Was not. Stop-and-frisk had next to no effect on crime rates in New York.

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.

 

[Derec]

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?

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.
Things like gang murders warrant prosecution as adult, even if the murderer is 17.

 

[Derec]

Link to a site that proves the poorly formatted student project wrong.

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.


It would be interesting to see where the yellow and red line go in the following years.

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.

 

[Derec]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

It's not like the police are THAT much better at shooting than they are.

If we go by numbers of bodies, the police are way WORSE at shooting than they are.

I mean year over year we're still the GOATS at being incarcerated.

You are also GOATS at committing crime. For example 5-6x the homicide rate compared with whites. That's a big difference.

There has been a decline since 2006 though. Ya think that has to do with cities being soft on Antifa & BLM?

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.

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.

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.

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!".

What do you mean they have no fear of the police? Some get shot by police, others are arrested. Again by police.

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.

That's because he wants to deal tomorrow. School shooters who post their plans online do not plan to get away with it.

 

[Derec]

For example instead of saying Briana Taylor died because the police committed a crime, we say, "BLM destroyed cities!".

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.

The hell does a bunch of idiots exploiting a movement to get free shit and cause destruction

Several things wrong with this. The bunch of idiots were not apart of the #BLM movement, they are an integral part of it.
For example, a Chicago #BLM leader supports looting:
Black Lives Matter Chicago Organizer Defends Looting: 'That's Reparations'
Also, #BLM destruction went beyond looting, into arson, assault and even murder. #BLM - Burn, Loot, Murder.

have to do with a women getting killed by police because they straight up lied to a judge to get a search warrant?

Those are two separate things. This does not excuse actions taken by #BLM in the least.

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.

You are right on that. Different etiologies and they require different approaches.
It is difficult to completely stop mass shooters who just snap. They usually have no criminal record. So barring some mental illness it is difficult to bar them from owning guns while also not unduly restricting the rest of us.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

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.
Things like gang murders warrant prosecution as adult, even if the murderer is 17.

How young does a gang murderer have to be before they should not be tried as adult?

 

[lpetrich]

I’m unaware of any Anglo concept of freedom that lets a person assault, murder, rape, steal, or openly defecate.

Does that apply to all people or just to people you dislike? If cops do those things, are they also guilty of crimes?

 

[Hermit]

Link to a site that proves the poorly formatted student project wrong.

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.

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.
2) The drop in violent crime and murder while stop-to-frisk operations is negligible, and there is no correlation either.
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. Again: No correlation.

It is also very different than the graph used by those students that hides the bump, whether accidentally or intentionally.

Very different? Is your gross distortion accidental or intentional?

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.

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.

 

[lpetrich]

Look at the non-prosecutions of most 2020 rioters.

Who do you count as a "rioter"?

 

[lpetrich]

The problem with issues like stop&frisk or crime policies in general is that it is highly politicized and also racially sensitive.

Defenders of stop&frisk: are you willing to accept that for yourselves?

And the mainstream media and universities (esp. social "science" departments) tend to skew left.

What a giveaway of one's political orientation.

If stop&frisk barely did anything about crime, then why bother with it? Especially racially selective stop&frisk.

 

[bilby]

It's a thing called "freedom".

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.

Typical Elixirian straw man.

Well, no hypocrisy here, then.

 

[bilby]

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

I would say the simply factual message "juveniles aren't adults" ought to be the take-home on that one.

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?

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 have laws at all? Just let bloodthirsty relatives tell the DA what punishments are appropriate, without reference to law at all. Skip the trials too; 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.

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.

 

[Derec]

Does that apply to all people or just to people you dislike? If cops do those things, are they also guilty of crimes?

Of course. If a SFPD officer defecates on the streets of San Francisco, Chesa's successor should charge him too.

Prosecutions should not be based on politics, or whether the prosecutors like or dislike the offenders. That's why Garland's DOJ going easy on 2020 insurrectionists/rioters while throwing the book at 1/6 ones is so wrong.

 

[Derec]

How young does a gang murderer have to be before they should not be tried as adult?

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.

The problem with Gascon is that he completely abandoned any idea of individual review of the case, and imposed a hard limit - anybody under 18 is treated as a child with lenient penalties for crimes such as murder.

 

[Derec]

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.

In a lot of cases, there is a lag time between cause and effect. Not everything happens immediately.

2) The drop in violent crime and murder while stop-to-frisk operations is negligible, and there is no correlation either.

That's where a good comparative analysis would be handy. What about violent crime vs. national trends? Vs. cities with no S&F.
The analysis is not deep enough.

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.

Fag end? Homophobic much?

Very different? Is your gross distortion accidental or intentional?

Students' graph cuts off before an uptick after BdB took over. I would say that is significant.

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.

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.
I think there needs to be more analysis, vs. cities with no stop and frisk during the same period for example. That's a sort of control group.

It can also be that the policy needs to be tweaked. Identifying people with illegal guns and removing them from the streets is a laudable goal. If we can do it without violating people's civil rights, why not?
Why is the left so quick to ban guns from law-abiding citizens, but so reluctant to take guns from criminals?

P.S.: I reduced the image size for a reason, so that it does not take up the whole page. You can keep that while quoting. No reason to blow it up.

 

[Derec]

Who do you count as a "rioter"?

These guys in Atlanta for example:

Or these guys in Minneapolis:

Certainly this firebomber and her boyfriend/getaway driver:

Just some among many from the 2020 insurrection. I could go on for pages and pages.
I do not think that anybody from the first two photos were ever prosecuted, while the two knuckleheads from the bottom picture got a sweetheart deal from Garland's DOJ for no prison time.

 

[Oleg]

 

[Derec]

Defenders of stop&frisk: are you willing to accept that for yourselves?

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.
I think the goal of it - getting illegal guns of the streets and arresting those who have them - is a good one. Do you not agree? It is a question of how best to do it.

What a giveaway of one's political orientation.

I think academic studies should not skew either left or right.

If stop&frisk barely did anything about crime,

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.

then why bother with it? Especially racially selective stop&frisk.

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.

 

[Derec]

I would say the simply factual message "juveniles aren't adults" ought to be the take-home on that one.

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.
And I think the law, as well as those tasked to uphold it, should take that into account.

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?

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.
During the luminal period when one is neither really a child nor an adult and applying individual circumstances of the offender and the case to the decision is I think the right one. Certainly better than saying that if a 17 year old murders somebody, incl. as part of a gang hit, he can only be tried as a child, which he isn't really any more.

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.

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.

Why have laws at all?

Why indeed. Let's just let bilby rule by decree.

Just let bloodthirsty relatives tell the DA what punishments are appropriate, without reference to law 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.

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 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 ...

Yes, this is from a TV show. But in real life, around here, all the time in the news you can see stories of teenagers killing people, often other teenagers. It's not something that should be taken lightly.

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.

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.

 

[Derec]

Well, no hypocrisy here, then.

No.