Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Guiliani Says NYC Stop and Frisk Has Saved 20,000 Lives

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760

    Guiliani Says NYC Stop and Frisk Has Saved 20,000 Lives

    Tonight on Fox Rudy Guiliani says the "stop and frisk" policy in NYC has saved 20,000 lives.

    I think can now officially declare that the 4th Amendment is no longer needed and if we do away with it completely we could save maybe 500,000 lives per year.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chesterfield
    Posts
    340
    Giuliani can bite his own toe. If he let his people defend themselves against the thugs in a constitutionally prescribed manner none of that would be needful.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Brace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...new-york/?_r=0

    He wants New York to be the new Rome of the world. The present can be sacrificed for the future. You wonder why statistics don't change the minds of gun control advocates? It's because they don't care about the present, or even the immediate future. If the American people are disarmed and habitually slaughtered by criminals for a few dozen generations that's no trouble, just as it's no trouble that they should be deprived of any other right. The idea is that these measures will eventually make people forget their violent tools and habits and hence remove the violent impulse from American culture altogether. The police are allowed to remain armed because they serve the interest of molding the culture of the people into the form necessary for this ideal transformation of society to eventually take place. They're like the provisional government under communism; the future justifies the deprivation of rights in the present via the careful shepherding of the elites and their faithful guards.

    It's worth noting that this familiar outlook emerged from the mind of an independently wealthy man and his constituents in a country safeguarded by sound laws, decentralized authority, and economic prosperity. It seems that every ideology is compatible with this horrible methodology and that the United States will be the country to definitely prove it so.
    Last edited by Brace; 10-31-2013 at 12:22 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, at Brown, they loved the NYPD commissioner coming to speak ... got booed off the stage.

    The NYPD is a terrorist organization.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ...The NYPD is a terrorist organization.
    Except when terrorists take out innocent bystanders, they proudly proclaim it was their intention.

    NYPD just can't help it.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, at Brown, they loved the NYPD commissioner coming to speak ... got booed off the stage.

    The NYPD is a terrorist organization.
    Personally I thought the people at Brown were jack asses for shouting down the speaker.

    Intelligent and rational people engage in civil debate and respect free speech.

    The commissioner was there specifically to engage in debate but the cry babies at Brown cant simply debate so they just cry, stomp their feet and shout like spoiled brats.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Personally I thought the people at Brown were jack asses for shouting down the speaker.

    Intelligent and rational people engage in civil debate and respect free speech.

    The commissioner was there specifically to engage in debate but the cry babies at Brown cant simply debate so they just cry, stomp their feet and shout like spoiled brats.
    Sounds like a few other groups of people....

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Personally I thought the people at Brown were jack asses for shouting down the speaker.

    Intelligent and rational people engage in civil debate and respect free speech.

    The commissioner was there specifically to engage in debate but the cry babies at Brown cant simply debate so they just cry, stomp their feet and shout like spoiled brats.
    I approved of the shout-down. The university should never have invited a member of the NYPD that thinks the constitution is nothing but toilet paper.

    How can there be "intelligent conversation" into rationalizing the violation of our constitutional rights?

    And isn't the shout-down an example if using free speech for good?

    Sorry, but I'll disagree with you on this one.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-31-2013 at 02:18 AM. Reason: crappy keyboard !

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Except when terrorists take out innocent bystanders, they proudly proclaim it was their intention.

    NYPD just can't help it.
    Gotta fight terrorism with terrorism? lol

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MamabearCali View Post
    Giuliani can bite his own toe. If he let his people defend themselves against the thugs in a constitutionally prescribed manner none of that would be needful.
    NYC can fall into the ocean for all I care .... (have I mentioned before that I hate NYC?) ...

    Commies and fascists .... fascists and commies ... I hate these two ...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I approved of the shout-down. The university should never have invited a member of the NYPD that thinks the constitution is nothing but toilet paper.

    How can there be "intelligent conversation" into rationalizing the violation of our constitutional rights?

    And isn't the shout-down an example if using free speech for good?

    Sorry, but I'll disagree with you on this one.
    Every free society has to allow for an exchange of ideas.

    Shouting someone down isn't free speech its simply yelling louder and not allowing someone else to speak.

    If the students simply wanted their voice to be heard they have that opportunity in other places and other venues.

    This event was specifically to debate and have a back and forth. This is what makes America special.

    As to your question of "how can there be intelligent conversation about the rationalizing the violation of our constitutional rights" ?? Simple, you show up, take the podium and make a rational and intelligent argument why stop and frisk violates our constitutional rights.

    Would you go before the Supreme Court to argue a case and simply yell the entire time while the opposing side makes their argument ?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Simple, you show up, take the podium and make a rational and intelligent argument why stop and frisk violates our constitutional rights.
    NYPD doesn't care about anyone's opinion; hence it was not a forum of open dialog ~ it was to promote unlawfulness by the government.. Why even allow the NYPD to speak? The NYPD was there to push their ideas of stop & frisk being OK ... NYPD already did it and still support it ...

    If our freedom of speech is the only way to address such issues then we would not have the 2nd amendment.


    Sometimes shouting people down is fine, this is one of those times.

    The SCOTUS scenario? I doubt that I will ever be before them.

    I applaud the students !

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    And I always add all liberty is essential and all safety is temporary.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    The only thing surprising to me about this ruling is that this "stop and frisk" practice has been going on so long in NYC, and is only now getting the judicial smack down. I'm a little disappointed that so much of the focus is on the racial disparity of the policy. Even if there was no racial component the practice is equally offensive - it is clear from the very forms used to justify the stops that the stops did not pass constitutional muster (requiring a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed, had been committed, or was about to be committed). That should be the primary basis for the decision -- the racial aspect should be the icing on the cake.

    Maybe it's just playing the race card because they feel that the overwhelmingly liberal populace of that area couldn't give a damn about the 4th amendment so long as it wasn't them that was being inconvenienced, but would give a damn about "racist" policies.

    Regardless of the window dressing put on it, it is a good ruling and I'm glad that the politicians and police are bent out of shape about it. I particularly like that the judge appears to intend to order the NYPD to start using on-body cameras in a test borough. I'd like to see on-body cameras required for all police, period. I believe that the "word" of a police officer carries too much judicial weight. Judicial predisposition to take the officer's word at face value may have been necessary at one point, but with technology today there's little reason not to have a recording (at least audio, but preferably audio and video) of every single interaction between a police officer and a citizen - especially interactions that result in arrest. The police should be all for such a requirement as it would do nothing but prove the constitutionality of their actions.

    The ruling itself is a pretty decent read (for those who, like me, like to read such things). It is here if you want to read it.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  16. #16
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Tonight on Fox Rudy Guiliani says the "stop and frisk" policy in NYC has saved 20,000 lives.

    I think can now officially declare that the 4th Amendment is no longer needed and if we do away with it completely we could save maybe 500,000 lives per year.
    So, with a 90% "innocence rate" per http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-j...risk-practices over 10 years, Rudy thinks they saved 20,000 lives? The murder rate in NYC was REDUCED by 2,000 PER YEAR? Really?
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    There were 418 murders total in New York City in 2012, a low number not seen since the '60s.
    For historical perspective, 2,245 people were murdered in New York City in 1990.
    Numbers indicate that just under 13,000 were murdered nationwide, (from ALL causes)

    Mayor Gullible is saying that without 'stop and frisk' NYC's numbers would be More Than the total number of homicides in the rest of the entire country combined.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    So, with a 90% "innocence rate" per http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-j...risk-practices over 10 years, Rudy thinks they saved 20,000 lives? The murder rate in NYC was REDUCED by 2,000 PER YEAR? Really?

    That's just how effective it was ! 10% caught? 99% of them for underage smoking I'll bet.

    I don't believe anything they say that supports this unlawful activity.

    9-11 9-11 I tired of this mantra .. It's bogus.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    But 10 years?

    How was it even possible that this practice existed for 10 days without moral and legal outrage?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  20. #20
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    But 10 years?

    How was it even possible that this practice existed for 10 days without moral and legal outrage?
    Public Schools.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    But 10 years?

    How was it even possible that this practice existed for 10 days without moral and legal outrage?
    It took 100 yrs to figure out slavery was not a good deal for the black population ... 10yrs? We're getting better !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •