JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 19th November 2012, 03:26 PM   #281
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Posts: 5,384
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Do you have to arrest them to search them and take their guns though? I thought the "fruit of the poison tree" deal stopped prosecution but the cops get to keep any contraband (in this case guns) found.

If the purpose is to get illegal guns off the streets, that might be enough.
So you're suggesting that we encourage/order our police officers to violate the law, but it's okay because we're never going to prosecute those people? That sounds downright Orwellian and, again, would be entirely illegal.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:38 PM   #282
marplots
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,532
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
So you're suggesting that we encourage/order our police officers to violate the law, but it's okay because we're never going to prosecute those people? That sounds downright Orwellian and, again, would be entirely illegal.
You don't have to be as overt as all that. Just let them know you'd like to see more stop and frisks based on gut instincts. Cops will figure it out.

"He looked a lot like a wanted poster I remember seeing awhile back."
"It was for my own protection."
"I thought I saw the outline of a gun."
"He smelled like booze/marijuana/heroin."
"Threatening demeanor."
"Furtive gesture."

Cops aren't stupid, they'll come up with something.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 06:44 AM   #283
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 10,538
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
You don't have to be as overt as all that. Just let them know you'd like to see more stop and frisks based on gut instincts. Cops will figure it out.

"He looked a lot like a wanted poster I remember seeing awhile back."
"It was for my own protection."
"I thought I saw the outline of a gun."
"He smelled like booze/marijuana/heroin."
"Threatening demeanor."
"Furtive gesture."

Cops aren't stupid, they'll come up with something.
This was tried in the UK under the "Sus Laws" and it generated a lot of ill will in communities who felt that they were being unfairly targeted.

This in turn resulted in UK police having to copiously document everything they did and why which has allegedly mean that coppers can't do coppering any more because all they do is fill out forms.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:07 AM   #284
Tolls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,302
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
This was tried in the UK under the "Sus Laws" and it generated a lot of ill will in communities who felt that they were being unfairly targeted.
Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area...
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:18 AM   #285
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Posts: 5,384
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
You don't have to be as overt as all that. Just let them know you'd like to see more stop and frisks based on gut instincts. Cops will figure it out.

"He looked a lot like a wanted poster I remember seeing awhile back."
"It was for my own protection."
"I thought I saw the outline of a gun."
"He smelled like booze/marijuana/heroin."
"Threatening demeanor."
"Furtive gesture."

Cops aren't stupid, they'll come up with something.
Excellent, so you'd encourage police officers to lie. If you want a police state, just say so.

I'm no big fan of an unlimited second amendment. In fact, I'd be happy to see the Constitution amended such that it's destroyed, or at least has its language moderated. But what you're advocating is far more dangerous than a nutburger with a gun.

All that said, I'll also note that I think the second amendment - as it was written and for the purpose it was written - specifically contemplates and approves civilian ownership of assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers...the whole shebang. If the Queen sent her army, I certainly wouldn't want to try fighting off her troops with only a Glock.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 08:05 AM   #286
marplots
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,532
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Excellent, so you'd encourage police officers to lie. If you want a police state, just say so.

I'm no big fan of an unlimited second amendment. In fact, I'd be happy to see the Constitution amended such that it's destroyed, or at least has its language moderated. But what you're advocating is far more dangerous than a nutburger with a gun.

All that said, I'll also note that I think the second amendment - as it was written and for the purpose it was written - specifically contemplates and approves civilian ownership of assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers...the whole shebang. If the Queen sent her army, I certainly wouldn't want to try fighting off her troops with only a Glock.
Let's not forget the context of the controversial stop and frisk I suggested -- how to get guns out of the hands of gang members. It's an "ends justify the means" deal.

And let's not pretend that cops harassing gang members isn't already in play here. There's the charge of "loitering with intent" and the "known drug area" and a host of others used already. Want something less intrusive? Give the cops those metal detecting wands -- they won't even have to touch a suspect for a quick once over.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 08:35 AM   #287
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,835
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Let's not forget the context of the controversial stop and frisk I suggested -- how to get guns out of the hands of gang members. It's an "ends justify the means" deal.

And let's not pretend that cops harassing gang members isn't already in play here. There's the charge of "loitering with intent" and the "known drug area" and a host of others used already. Want something less intrusive? Give the cops those metal detecting wands -- they won't even have to touch a suspect for a quick once over.
The behavior that defines a gang is defending turf. The way that most gangs do this, threatening people who walk down a public sidewalk, is in fact a crime. Searching a person being arrested for weapons isn't a violation of civil rights.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 08:51 AM   #288
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
That could be true. However, our Bill of Rights isn't just going to be tossed aside so that we can arrest a few gang bangers.
You do not need to toss your bill of rights aside to enable the police to do widescale searching of gang members to recover guns and arrest those who illegally possess them.

I can understand you defending law abiding citizens posessing guns, not the criminals.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 08:55 AM   #289
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
You don't have to be as overt as all that. Just let them know you'd like to see more stop and frisks based on gut instincts. Cops will figure it out.

"He looked a lot like a wanted poster I remember seeing awhile back."
"It was for my own protection."
"I thought I saw the outline of a gun."
"He smelled like booze/marijuana/heroin."
"Threatening demeanor."
"Furtive gesture."

Cops aren't stupid, they'll come up with something.
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Excellent, so you'd encourage police officers to lie. If you want a police state, just say so.

.....
Who said anything about lying? The police should be on the lookout for any signs of possession and acting on that.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:09 AM   #290
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Who said anything about lying? The police should be on the lookout for any signs of possession and acting on that.
In American LE, it's called reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

An officer must be able to articulate specific facts that led him to approach an individual in the first place to establish reasonable suspicion, and there must be probable cause to conduct a search of said individual.

NYC and a few other locals have "stop and frisk" as an effort to take illegal guns of the street - the Mayor loves it, but results are negligible:

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-j...risk-practices
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:21 AM   #291
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Posts: 5,384
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Let's not forget the context of the controversial stop and frisk I suggested -- how to get guns out of the hands of gang members. It's an "ends justify the means" deal.

And let's not pretend that cops harassing gang members isn't already in play here. There's the charge of "loitering with intent" and the "known drug area" and a host of others used already. Want something less intrusive? Give the cops those metal detecting wands -- they won't even have to touch a suspect for a quick once over.
Guess what, I do understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to express to you is that the end (getting guns out of evil hands) doesn't justify the means (treating the Constitution like toilet paper).

If we want to do battle with the Constitution, the place to do that is through the means provided in that document. Giving police officers license to ignore the law is not the right way to do that.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:24 AM   #292
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Guess what, I do understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to express to you is that the end (getting guns out of evil hands) doesn't justify the means (treating the Constitution like toilet paper).

If we want to do battle with the Constitution, the place to do that is through the means provided in that document. Giving police officers license to ignore the law is not the right way to do that.
I agree fully.

Problem is that there are politicians and LE administrators perfectly willing to throw the Constitution and the BoR into a shredder when it suits them - repubs and demos both.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:32 AM   #293
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Posts: 5,384
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Who said anything about lying? The police should be on the lookout for any signs of possession and acting on that.
Look at the list of excuses you quoted again:
Quote:
"He looked a lot like a wanted poster I remember seeing awhile back."
That is not a "sign of possession."
Quote:
"It was for my own protection."
This would only be an excuse for a search incident to arrest, which needs its own, separate reason.
Quote:
"I thought I saw the outline of a gun."
This might be the only good excuse on the list.
Quote:
"He smelled like booze/marijuana/heroin."
Sorry, sparky, but smelling marijuana on someone is not an indicator of likely gun possession. Certainly alcohol isn't, and I don't think you can smell most other drugs at any reasonable distance anyway.
Quote:
"Threatening demeanor."
I don't even know what this means. If someone has actually threatened another person, that might be a good reason to search for a gun. But a "demeanor?"
Quote:
"Furtive gesture."
Towards a police officer? Maybe. In an already tense situation? Okay. Otherwise, it's another crock.

I'm sorry, but I only want police officers searching people who actually do something, not because they look suspicious. Even gang members ought to have the protection of the Constitution.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?

Last edited by Babbylonian; 20th November 2012 at 09:35 AM.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:35 AM   #294
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
In American LE, it's called reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

An officer must be able to articulate specific facts that led him to approach an individual in the first place to establish reasonable suspicion, and there must be probable cause to conduct a search of said individual.

NYC and a few other locals have "stop and frisk" as an effort to take illegal guns of the street - the Mayor loves it, but results are negligible:

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-j...risk-practices
From that link between 10 and 18% of searches were positive. I checked for Scotland and found that it has varied between 7 and 20% of searches are positive. I would not describe that as negligible.

I also think that how stop searches are conducted is important. A non aggressive approach, explaining why the search is being carried out and a thanks for those who cooperated and nothing was found goes a long way to reducing animosity.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:44 AM   #295
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Look at the list of excuses you quoted again:
That is not a "sign of possession."
This would only be an excuse for a search incident to arrest, which needs its own, separate reason.
This might be the only good excuse on the list.
Sorry, sparky, but smelling marijuana on someone is not an indicator of likely gun possession. Certainly alcohol isn't, and I don't think you can smell most other drugs at any reasonable distance anyway.
I don't even know what this means. If someone has actually threatened another person, that might be a good reason to search for a gun. But a "demeanor?"
Towards a police officer? Maybe. In an already tense situation? Okay. Otherwise, it's another crock.

I'm sorry, but I only want police officers searching people who actually do something, not because they look suspicious. Even gang members ought to have the protection of the Constitution.
I just quoited the list, I made no comment on how good a list is was. The police should and where I live do use intelligence to target who abd where to conduct searches. They should look for signs that people are acting suspiciously. Here the are various separate laws to allow searches for drugs, alcohol, weapons and stolen property. Some times the police are not sure which one of that list they will find until they have found it.

This is not about random searches, it should be where there is intelligence that people are carrying weapons. For example, when one gang is found in another gangs area and there was recently violence between the two gangs. Or the police receive information a person is habitually carrying a weapon. Or there has been a lot of weapon use in a certain area, say a turf war is ongoing.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:51 AM   #296
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Posts: 5,384
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
This is not about random searches, it should be where there is intelligence that people are carrying weapons. For example, when one gang is found in another gangs area and there was recently violence between the two gangs. Or the police receive information a person is habitually carrying a weapon. Or there has been a lot of weapon use in a certain area, say a turf war is ongoing.
No. People should not be subject to random searches for weapons, certainly not on public property. You can claim "intelligence" but unless that "intelligence" regards a specific person, it's useless for anything but assigning increased patrols and said patrols shouldn't have the right to search people without specific probable cause.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:56 AM   #297
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
No. People should not be subject to random searches for weapons, certainly not on public property. You can claim "intelligence" but unless that "intelligence" regards a specific person, it's useless for anything but assigning increased patrols and said patrols shouldn't have the right to search people without specific probable cause.
Right, so we agree.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:57 AM   #298
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
From that link between 10 and 18% of searches were positive. I checked for Scotland and found that it has varied between 7 and 20% of searches are positive. I would not describe that as negligible.

I also think that how stop searches are conducted is important. A non aggressive approach, explaining why the search is being carried out and a thanks for those who cooperated and nothing was found goes a long way to reducing animosity.
Unfortunatly, most positive searches were misdemeanor drug possession, not illegal carry.

Firearms confiscated run below 1% of the total criminal charge contacts under the S & F program.

This, from the NYT, not noted for supporting Second Amendment rights:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/op...and-frisk.html

ETA - this article from the NYT also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/op...risk.html?_r=0

Last edited by BStrong; 20th November 2012 at 10:00 AM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:57 AM   #299
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Posts: 5,384
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Right, so we agree.
Not even close. "There have been a lot of shootings in this area" is not a good enough reason to search someone in that area for a gun, which is pretty clearly what you suggested.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 10:20 AM   #300
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 10,192
I've mentioned in other threads that laws about search and seizure are constantly in flux and can get rather arcane.
When police have cause to "stop" someone, if only to inquire who they are and what they are doing, they are also entitled to do a "Terry" (the name of the court case) frisk. This is a quick, cursory pat-down of the subject's externals so that the officer can satisfy himself that the individual does not have a ready-to-access weapon.
However, this is not a "search" which would involve a more detailed examination of the person to look for concealed weapons and other contraband.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Terry frisk as being necessary for the officer's safety.

As noted, we need to be able to articulate reasons why the individual was stopped in the first place....
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 10:20 AM   #301
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Unfortunatly, most positive searches were misdemeanor drug possession, not illegal carry.

Firearms confiscated run below 1% of the total criminal charge contacts under the S & F program.

This, from the NYT, not noted for supporting Second Amendment rights:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/op...and-frisk.html

ETA - this article from the NYT also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/op...risk.html?_r=0
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Not even close. "There have been a lot of shootings in this area" is not a good enough reason to search someone in that area for a gun, which is pretty clearly what you suggested.
Targeted intelligence lead searches is what I am arguing for. I think we are at risk of arguing on the semantics only.

The statistics from the NYT have not been fully examined. They take no account of how stop searches deter crime and have not looked at how well they are being targetted at present. To be a measured success you need to accept that even targetted searches will have a declining rate of success as people are deterred from carrying drugs, guns or whatever. Then you also need to keep going or else if the police stop searches people will go back to carrying again.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 10:58 AM   #302
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,835
It's probably worth noting that most firearms homicides in the US are not connected to gangs.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 01:40 PM   #303
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,104
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
It's probably worth noting that most firearms homicides in the US are not connected to gangs.
As up to 83% of firearm homicides are gang-related, it's probably not worth noting that they aren't.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 01:56 PM   #304
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,835
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
As up to 83% of firearm homicides are gang-related, it's probably not worth noting that they aren't.
I am calling ******** in this claim.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:05 PM   #305
Pope130
Graduate Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
I am calling ******** in this claim.
Looks like we're in for a showdown.

Both of you get ready to reference your sources!

3

2

1
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:08 PM   #306
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
The minute you start instituting a mini Patriot Act in communities is the minute that you have cashed in liberty to pay for security (and we all know that little quote ).


People drink and drive and kill other people too. Are you going to start randomly stopping people on the street and seeing if they've been drinking and confiscate their keys of they have ? Roadblocks at every intersection? "papers please?"


part of the fallout of a free society of the sheer magnitude and cultural diversity of the USA is that there's gonna be some crime. frankly, compared to how it was in the 80's and 90's, I think we are doing a pretty good job.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:10 PM   #307
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Here, I will put up this link and you can both use it to you heart's content.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:18 PM   #308
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,835
See FBI Crime in the United States (2011). Table 11, Murder Circumstances by Weapon.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:20 PM   #309
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,104
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
I am calling ******** in this claim.
Now, was trhat a nice thing to say?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...h-murder-rate/

I know coincidence does not necessrily equaly causality, but the cogruence of areas with high gang acitivity and areas with high levels of firearm homicide should at least lead to a first approxinmation conclusion.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:27 PM   #310
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
What I read said 90% of gang homicides are gun related. I could see how someone could misconstrue that to mean 90% of all murders by guns are gang related.

it appears that most of all firearms murders are the result of arguments and "unknown" reasons.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:31 PM   #311
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,835
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Now, was trhat a nice thing to say?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...h-murder-rate/

I know coincidence does not necessrily equaly causality, but the cogruence of areas with high gang acitivity and areas with high levels of firearm homicide should at least lead to a first approxinmation conclusion.
The logical error is known as cherry picking. Chicago and a few other cities have high rates of gang related firearms homicides, but these cities may not be representative of firearms homicides in the entire nation. To find that we need to look at national data.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:42 PM   #312
marplots
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,532
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The logical error is known as cherry picking. Chicago and a few other cities have high rates of gang related firearms homicides, but these cities may not be representative of firearms homicides in the entire nation. To find that we need to look at national data.
I have no problem with customizing stop and frisk for urban areas where gang guns are the problem we want to solve. It seems reasonable to focus efforts where they are likely to do the most good instead of instituting a universal policy.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 02:46 PM   #313
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
I think your policy would result in more cops being killed honestly. Kids with guns, asked to stop to be frisked, they respond with a choice expletive, it escalates, kids don't wanna back down, cop gets shot..... They eventually are arrested , the gun confiscated, 3 more take it's place (both in people and weapons)


sorry, but I don't like the idea of searching citizens without a warrant. now if you CHOOSE to enter a building or event that requires a search, well that's a choice you made. But random searches on the street is a dirty alley no free democratic society should walk down.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 03:25 PM   #314
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,835
Searching citizens without a warrant happens all the time. But it's better that in the good old days when driving while black was considered probable cause by all too many police departments.

As I mentioned earlier, gang members can be arrested for simply threatening violence when they are defending their turf.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 03:27 PM   #315
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Sure you search people when you arrest and/or detain them. But that's different than a policy of grabbing random people and asking "papers please" then searching them.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 03:42 PM   #316
marplots
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,532
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
Sure you search people when you arrest and/or detain them. But that's different than a policy of grabbing random people and asking "papers please" then searching them.
Not so much random as gang members.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 03:44 PM   #317
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
you going to end up searching a lot of people walking down the street who you think are gang members and aren't. Then you end up pissing of the community, or escalating violence between the cops and the gangs.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 03:46 PM   #318
marplots
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,532
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
you going to end up searching a lot of people walking down the street who you think are gang members and aren't. Then you end up pissing of the community, or escalating violence between the cops and the gangs.
Maybe you could explain to people that you are trying to get guns off the streets and save lives. They might understand.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 03:53 PM   #319
Ferguson
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 896
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The logical error is known as cherry picking. Chicago and a few other cities have high rates of gang related firearms homicides, but these cities may not be representative of firearms homicides in the entire nation. To find that we need to look at national data.
But there is no firearm problem in "the entire nation," which includes states like North Dakota or Vermont where there's 10 homicides a year.

Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, etc. are the firearms homicides problem.
Ferguson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 03:53 PM   #320
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
good luck with that..... only way to pull off that is to:

A) decriminalize drugs removing their income source

B) ban all guns nationwide ,which punishes everybody for the actions of a very tiny fraction of society which is unconstitutional and pretty darn unfair.

IMO, as long as there are parents who don't give a crap about their kids, and schools that don't function properly, there are going to be gangs. If you banned all guns tomorrow, they would just knife each other , be the only ones with illegal guns from Mexico, or beat each other with sticks.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.