From: ahk@chinet.com

Peter Schleifer   wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 10:09:14 -0500, Stephen Sprunk
> wrote:
>
>>On 02-Aug-14 19:18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 2, 2014 3:03:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> Cops walking/driving a beat increases the _perception_ that
>>>> criminals will be caught, changing the subconscious risk/reward
>>>> analysis. Just as important, though, are the detectives who
>>>> investigate crimes and _actually_ catch the offenders.
>>>
>>> Cops are only one part of the issue.
>>>
>>> Another part is public policy.  NYC has an aggressive stop 'n frisk
>>> policy, Phila refuses to go that route.   I submit that stop 'n frisk
>>> in NYC acts as a deterrent.
>>
>>It's a deterrent alright--a deterrent against minorities trusting the
>>police because they're profiled and harassed even though the police's
>>own statistics show it has absolutely no effect on crime.
>
>Stop and Frisk was an issue in last year's NYC mayoral race - the
>winner and the police commissioner he appointed opposed it, but stop
>and frisk rates dropped dramatically even before the election in
>response to a court order.  Crime rates have continued to drop,
>
>Now the emphasis is on going after people who are actually committing
>crimes, even minor ones, which has led to the current controversy over
>someone who was selling untaxed cigarettes dying while being
>restrained by police using a choke hold (which is against department
>policy).

I don't even get how a civil matter like municipal taxes got redefined
as a crime. Couldn't they have mailed the guy a summons? Why were the
police there at all?

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)