Chicago has used stop and frisk policing to gather intelligence on suspicious activity for decades. The program was emphasized by Rham Emanuel's first police chief, who doubled the practice. In 2014 & 2015, CPD conducted over 1.3 million stop and frisks each year. It was the most aggressive program in the country during that period. And yet it did not do wonders - the murder rate increased by over 20% in 2015.
OT: Las Vegas Active Shooter
- Thread starter raulduke_007
- Start date
Chicago has used stop and frisk policing to gather intelligence on suspicious activity for decades. The program was emphasized by Rham Emanuel's first police chief, who doubled the practice. In 2014 & 2015, CPD conducted over 1.3 million stop and frisks each year. It was the most aggressive program in the country during that period. And yet it did not do wonders - the murder rate increased by over 20% in 2015.
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but it would be interesting to know the different level of care and support provided the mentally ill in these countries. I’m not talking about the obvious seriously ill, but rather the multitudes that are functional and in the shadows. My best friend of forty plus years became depressed several years ago over the undiagnosed physical reason for chronic jaw pain; took prescription medication for depression; continued to function as an executive; and committed suicide two years ago. As his depression worsened, my wife and I explored live in facilities that provided intense psychiatric care for seriously depressed, and in the progressive State of California, there were only two! Hundreds of similar facilities serving the depressed drug and alcohol addicted, but two extremely expensive statewide serving the clinically depressed. I could no more imagine him committing suicide than I could imagine him committing mass murder. I personally believe focus and efforts to serve the needs of the mentally ill will produce measurably better results than limiting guns. My bias is that someone has to be mentally ill to indiscriminately kill innocent strangers, and they will use whatever means necessary.
So if you yelled fire in a theatre you'd get charged with?
So you're saying stop and frisk was implemented to the level it was in implemented in New York City.
Just because you claim the word of doing something if you do it half assed it's results are less than anything note worthy.
I can say I work out everyday but if it's the extent of walking to get the mail and back well how impactful is my workout
Depends on the jurisdiction. Criminal laws vary from state to state, with differing terminology used (I've practiced in three states, serving as a prosecutor in two).
Also depends on the outcome of your yelling "fire." If everyone ignores you, maybe you won't get charged with much. If your yelling produces a stampede that injures people, the charges would be more severe.
Disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment....
They are populated by docile white people who don't and can't do things Americans do. You could issue everyone in Austria a full machine gun and the crime rate would still be negligible. Because guns don't cause violence. By the same token, 3rd world shit holes can and do have draconian gun laws enforced by strongmen, and they are still as violent as ever.
Good to know. Let's legalize every type of weapon. After all, they don't cause violence.
Yes. It was a very similar effort on a very similar scale.
Chicago's (old) long time stop-and-frisk policing involved the use of "contact cards" that officers were required to maintain. The information was then compiled into a computerized system. You'd have officers respond to a shooting or robbery, hear a description of the bad guy, and sometimes the description would match a contact (or frequent contacts) with a bad guy that worked the area. Starting around 2013, the CPD significantly escalated stop and frisk policing "modeled" after New York City's. The Superintendent of Police that implemented the escalation in Chicago was a former NYC Deputy Police Commissioner, Garry McCarthy. McCarthy oversaw NYC's Compstat program (which is the crime statistics program that drove NYC's successful stop and frisk community policing practices). There was a lot of hope that McCarthy would be able make progress in Chicago, which is why he was hired as the highest paid city employee. Under McCarthy, the CPD also used the contact cards - in addition to solving crimes - as a measure of officer performance (and that of area commanders). And the CPD used CompStat to direct stop and frisk policing efforts according to crime statistics, like NYC did. Chicago cops weren't just mailing it in.
At the height of NYC stop and frisk policing, there were about 600,000 stop-and-frisks in NYC. There were that many - actually evidenced by contact cards - in Chicago in first 10 months of 2014. I understand your skepticism, so I've linked an old story (here) about Chicago's efforts when they first started drawing attention.
Like NYC, Chicago's increased stop and frisk policing drew concern from the ACLU who, in a lawsuit against the City, claimed Chicago stopped and frisked people at four times the rate in NYC. Around that same time, the CPD were accused of covering up problems with the police shooting of Laquan McDonald with false police reports, and the story blew up when damning video of the shooting was released (three officer have been indicted). The combination of events drew strong calls for police reforms. The state then passed legislation requiring police officers to issue a "stop receipt" that identifies the officer making the contact by name and badge number and contains a description of reason for the stop. Since that change went into effect late last year, along with increased reporting requirements, police officers have issued 80% fewer contact cards.
Nukes don't kill people. People kill people.
Hey North Korea! You can have as many nukes as you want!
You guys sure know how to take it to the extreme.
I'm afraid this argument has been settled by the supreme court , but it's good to get it out of your system. Its unhealthy and IIO has shown facts(?) that Americans just are not that healthy.
IIO I didn't forget about you brother Had issues We ruptured an artesian aquifer. Big mess.
Do nukes cause nuclear war? IF so how long does it take? Some people have been sitting on an arsenal for 70 years.
Aren’t You making the point you are arguing against? Nukes under the control of Britain for example are of little concern, while nukes under the control of nut jobs controlling North Korea are!
Or, as we currently do now, we can use reasonable judgment and discussion to determine which items citizens should reasonably have and which items citizens should reasonably not have, and not make stupid arguments such as "inanimate objects don't cause violence".
We are the only country that has used nukes and killed civilians. Maybe we are the only country that should be prohibited from having them now.
The point is, if having guns aren't the problem, then a country having nukes isn't a problem.
The upshot is that handguns and semiautomatic rifles are considered protected under the 2nd Amendment. An outright ban would be unconstitutional, and there would be a limit to how much they could be restricted. The bottom line is that they type of gun control being discussed simply isn't possible without a constitutional amendment.
The point being made is that guns by themselves don’t kill people, they require someone to use them for that purpose. Carried to its logical conclusion, this suggests that a person’s fitness to own a gun should be made before they are allowed to purchase. Background checks that include mental fitness and criminal records and terrorist watch lists at a minimum should be required at every purchase, including gun shows.
Which begs the question if those measures would have stopped the shooter in Las Vegas. So far it doesn't appear he exhibited any red flags.
Probably not. But that can’t be the litmus test every time any change is proposed. Would it have stopped Colorado and Sandy Hook and San Bernardino and Orlando? Maybe.
I’m not suggesting a litmus test at all. I am suggesting that some people should not be allowed to own a gun lawfully. People with a mental illness that lend to irrational violent acts, people with criminal histories involving force or violence, people with a history of domestic violence, people on terrorist watch lists, etc... are examples of people I think should not be allowed to lawfully purchase a gun. I’m a 2nd amendment advocate, but I think a universable background check should be instituted for all gun purchases, including gun shows. As always, the devil is in the details, and I appreciate any and all concerns about allowing the Liberal camels nose in this tent.
I believe the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 Columbia vs Heller covers this:
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."
It would be nice if when people have these ideas, they would think about how to apply them to the real world.
Tell me, if you would, HOW you would determine if someone is mentally ill? The only way you could legally do that is to have a person evaluated by a psychologist. So tell me, HOW are you going to accomplish this? Do you think said person is going to willing submit to a psychological exam? If not, how are you going to compel said person to submit to an exam? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but a person cannot be forced to undergo a psychological exam by the government, except under unique circumstances (such as court order for someone convicted of a crime). I would really love to know how you propose the determination of mental illness would be made.
Regarding some of your other proposals, many of them already exist. In the state of South Carolina (about as red of a state as you can get), there ALREADY is a law prohibiting anyone with a history of domestic violence from owning a gun.
A person with a history of mental illness, not suggesting everyone submit to a psychological test. Great that South Carolina has this law, just suggesting that kind of common sense be applied universally and applied to gun show purchases as well.
Is there a universal background check and record accessible across state lines that incorporates these principles? And are these applied to gun show purchases?
Gun Purchase Background Check
Currently, when a gun is purchased from a Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) seller, an instant
background check is performed, with the buyers consent, through the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS). This is done either by phone or online through the FBI’s E-
Check system. Convicted felons, people convicted of violent domestic crimes, those determined
by the courts to be dangerously mentally ill, and those residing in the United States without.
When you start talking universally then we'll end up with California gun laws..... No thank you
The problem is, many times these shooters don't have a history of mental illness. What I'm suggesting to you is, it's rather difficult for person to have an established history of mental illness in general, before you ever get to them buying a gun. Unless a person has committed a crime or something of that nature, you generally can't force someone to undergo psychological evaluation. So the problem is, it's difficult to establish a history of mental illness to even be checked when someone buys a gun.
Again, so far there aren't any signs that this Las Vegas shooter had any documented history of mental illness. In the Sandy Hook shooting you referenced, the shooter's mother is the one who bought the guns.
Regarding your comments about law or restrictions being universally applied, I don't know why some of you can't get this through your heads. Some of these ideas you have for the federal government would simply be unconstitutional. All it would take is one lawsuit, and some of these laws would be overturned. It's not going to be as simple as one bill getting pushed through Congress. It's going to be a more complicated process, and you are frankly hurting your own cause by advocating for the quick and easy way, instead of the longer but more effective approach.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Suggest you read the above post by DIP, detailing how most of these exact concepts are in fact enforced via the National instant Criminal Background Check System. Over 1.3 million have been denied gun purchases as a result. The system does not apply to private purchases like this that take place at gun shows, and it has a 72hr cutoff where the gun purchase is allowed if the check is not completed in this timeframe. It is used in thirty states. The mental ill criteria is very narrow and restrictive, but still something like 27k have been denied on this basis.
I think they should stop people from buying guns if they are on any type of anti psychotic medications or meds that cause such activity as hallucinations as side effects.
I have a question for DIP.
Currently I don't believe there is any law stopping you from carrying 3 or 4 AR15's up to your hotel room in Vegas or NYC. Am I right with that? I have to assume that there will be scanning in all hotels going forward and your right to bring those weapons will be limited.
Will you disagree with these restrictions near stadiums, central park, concerts, etc on allowing those types of weapons inside?
Again, I assume that right is going to be limited going forward.
I have a question for DIP.
Currently I don't believe there is any law stopping you from carrying 3 or 4 AR15's up to your hotel room in Vegas or NYC. Am I right with that? I have to assume that there will be scanning in all hotels going forward and your right to bring those weapons will be limited.
Will you disagree with these restrictions near stadiums, central park, concerts, etc on allowing those types of weapons inside?
Again, I assume that right is going to be limited going forward.
The reason it's very narrow in my opinion is because who's going to be the Arbiter stating what is the criteria for someone not to be allowed to have a handgun due to mental reasons.
Would the same criteria fall as getting a driver's license?
Buying a house?
As far as private sales I guess I don't know the definition of a private owner sale? I guess I never really thought about it till now
I'm fully aware of that. The problem is, we are pushing up on the extent of what can be done legally. Your point about mental illness illustrates what I'm talking about. You said you don't think mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns. Well, then you turn around and quote a statistic demonstrating mentally ill people have been denied the right to own guns. So I really don't see your beef. As I pointed out to you, many of these mass shooters wouldn't be denied a weapon based on mental illness. So again, I don't see your beef.
I will again ask the question, how many of these mass shootings would that have stopped?
I stay out of town a lot due to my job and not one time did I ever bring an AR-15 or any long rifle for that point to a hotel room.
I would definitely think a place like Las Vegas with a high-end Hotel would have some kind of measure.
This incident will definitely change what privately owned businesses will do. I have no problem with any means of checking somebody who potentially might have arms
When I go on vacation or out of town by way of air and I am carrying a sidearm I check it according to all rules and regulations.
After all I'm using their services to go somewhere as compared to a tyrannical government taking my Liberties
Last edited:
