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)