I expected lots of yelling. And I really would like to know how much this is being enforced. And how the new mayor managed to win with this idea on his platform.
If Ben Franklin saw what West Philly looked today from when he left it after founding UPenn, he might say "If you respect the law, the law will respect you."
And how come Bobby Kennedy gets a bridge named after him for racially profiling white people in fighting the KKK, but this profiling is a grave injustice?
"Once it goes into effect, every cop in the city will be employing it on every african american male ages 14 to 30 who wears baggy clothing and has some bling."
Nostradaemus, I presume?
Do you really think cops are so bored and have nothing to do that they will simply frisk people for absolutely no reason whatsoever, aside from the color of one's skin?
When you are in a neighborhood in which the great majority of persons are black, how could an officer every arrest anyone without it being considered "profiling"?
If we scream "profiling" too much, there is a point when it becomes the boy who cries wolf.
Benjamin Franklin, as great a man he was, is not a god; he is neither infallible nor without contradiction or opposition to his own beliefs with the same great men who founded the nation with him.
Do you really think cops are so bored and have nothing to do overtaken by the authority of their position and surrounded by corruption that they will simply frisk people for absolutely no reason whatsoever, aside from the color of one's skin?
FTFY.
When you are in a neighborhood in which the great majority of persons are black, how could an officer every arrest anyone without it being considered "profiling"?
Considering the half-dozen major cities Greg has mentioned already have this in place, I would think there has to be some sort a check and balances system in place as part of this law, otherwise we would be hearing about the rampant abuse of this power in these other cities.
As for how Nutter won with this policy... 4 highly media covered police officer killings in less than a year and proven record of success (for the stop/frisk policy) made this very appealing for a city suffering an unprecedented amount of brazen murders. You may or may not agree with the logic, but it's easy to see how people voted for this.
What you say is true and all. I think when you guys move here, take a walk at 9:00PM from Front and Olney towards Broad street. Stop short of Temple's campus, and head south to Kensington. Talk to some locals in Kensington and ask if there's anything fun to do in the area. Sorry to be cynical, but if you did that, you would have a better understanding of why Nutter managed to win with it on his platform.
And the solution I liked to solve the crime was different. I liked the idea Ed Snider had - buy up city blocks in North Philly and build the casinos there. What bad is going to happen, the pimps and drugs will come in and lower the property value?
This policy, as with most policies, will run amok and get abused. It starts with a good intention, and will then get fucked all to hell by abusive and ignorant police officers like the ones that were JUST on tape beating people, and it will result in more shadiness and crime to keep your dealings out of the public eye. Just like the war on drugs.
The other alternative is that everyone becomes submissive collective drones to the police state, which, ya know, is just as fun.
Of course not, their are always exceptions, however, exceptions are exceptions because they have a low rate of occurence. Not an excuse for the action, but certainly not worth broad reformation because of the idiocy of a few. I am willing to bet that a lot of these incidents can be acredited to the environment in which police officers have to be in constantly, and in many bad areas, the police are not respected (and more importantly, obeyed) at all
( ... )
Your "police state" slippery-slope for basic compliance and tools to fight drug dealers and crime that are a major factor in the crippling of these neighborhods, is completely lost to me.
Should we pass no bill, nor inact any powers, for the fear that any small group of people may abuse it?
No, but it has to remain limited to the occasion it's for. This is augmenting. If you give someone great power, they will many times abuse that power and then want even more than that (white collar crime). You're talking about a group of people, and i know we've had this discussion before about military, that entered a field explicitly to have the power to stop criminals.
But it's more than about the possibility of abuse, it's about unreasonable searches and violation of someone's person and property.
Who defines "unreasonable", or better yet, how do we begin to measure what is reasonable and what is not? Maybe that question is too hypothetical, but to me, it is a matter of balance and tweaking, not simply a broad "no" to augmentation.
Yes, we discussed about why people are in the occupations they are, but in the end, most people who are in the occupation of their choosing are in it for an equally selfish reason: it brings them pleasure, or fulfills a particular need, that need being power, stature, vanity, and the most basic and universal, financial, or a combination thereof.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And how come Bobby Kennedy gets a bridge named after him for racially profiling white people in fighting the KKK, but this profiling is a grave injustice?
Reply
Nostradaemus, I presume?
Do you really think cops are so bored and have nothing to do that they will simply frisk people for absolutely no reason whatsoever, aside from the color of one's skin?
When you are in a neighborhood in which the great majority of persons are black, how could an officer every arrest anyone without it being considered "profiling"?
If we scream "profiling" too much, there is a point when it becomes the boy who cries wolf.
Benjamin Franklin, as great a man he was, is not a god; he is neither infallible nor without contradiction or opposition to his own beliefs with the same great men who founded the nation with him.
Reply
FTFY.
When you are in a neighborhood in which the great majority of persons are black, how could an officer every arrest anyone without it being considered "profiling"?
Here I'm with you though.
Reply
As for how Nutter won with this policy... 4 highly media covered police officer killings in less than a year and proven record of success (for the stop/frisk policy) made this very appealing for a city suffering an unprecedented amount of brazen murders. You may or may not agree with the logic, but it's easy to see how people voted for this.
Reply
- Derek
Reply
And the solution I liked to solve the crime was different. I liked the idea Ed Snider had - buy up city blocks in North Philly and build the casinos there. What bad is going to happen, the pimps and drugs will come in and lower the property value?
Reply
The other alternative is that everyone becomes submissive collective drones to the police state, which, ya know, is just as fun.
Reply
Agree or disagree this is the solution?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Should we pass no bill, nor inact any powers, for the fear that any small group of people may abuse it?
Reply
But it's more than about the possibility of abuse, it's about unreasonable searches and violation of someone's person and property.
Reply
Yes, we discussed about why people are in the occupations they are, but in the end, most people who are in the occupation of their choosing are in it for an equally selfish reason: it brings them pleasure, or fulfills a particular need, that need being power, stature, vanity, and the most basic and universal, financial, or a combination thereof.
Reply
Leave a comment