Will someone please explain this to me!

New York City’s city council is set to dilute a host of criminal laws including laws against public urination and excessive noise because council members believe too many members of minorities are getting arrested.

The New York Police Department already relaxed its enforcement of many quality-of-life laws after years of enforcing exactly such laws led to record lows of crime in the once-much-grittier city,reports The New York Times,

This relaxation strategy wasn’t enough for city lawmakers.

“We know that the system has been really rigged against communities of color in particular,” council member Melissa Mark-Viverito, a Democrat, told the Times. “So the question has always been, what can we do in this job to minimize unnecessary interaction with the criminal justice system, so that these young people can really fulfill their potential?”

 

It's called abuse of power. You can't turn the news on without seeing some cop somewhere killing a minority and then lying about the facts of the incident while the cop is investigated by the police and found innocent near every single time. This new ordinance removes the option the cops have had to harass, fine, jail, beat, kill minorities at will and call it justified.

No matter what Right-wing lunatic fringe The Daily Caller thinks, nobody should have to die as a result of out of control cops.

 

Hmm, seems like the New York Police Department has been doing such a fine job of enforcing "quality-of-life laws" in New York City that the whole country has experienced a drop in crime. Amazing.

 

Got it! Now maybe you can tell me just how many urinating offenders have bee "murdered" by these out-of-control cops. Or how many noisy offenders have bee "murdered" by these out-of-control cops.

And I believe that no matter what left-wing lunatic fringe thinks, no cop should have to die as a result of out of control offenders.

 

Wait a minute, you didn't really want it explained to you did you? You had already made up your mind and merely needed someone to rail against didn't you? Oh I was fooled good! You crafty devil you.

 

Now post the NYC crime statistics since the laws have been relaxed. And explain how Giulani managed to lower the crime rates.

 

I suppose you did the best you could. It is just that your hate overrides logic.

 

I did the best I could considering I was dealing with a moron.

 

That's for you (or the "Daily Caller") to do.

In case the point of my post went over your head, the crime rate all over the United States was dropping during the Giuliani era in New York City. Therefore any claim that his policies were the actual cause of crime rates dropping in New York City is problematic, and needs to be supported. Neither you nor the "Daily Caller" provided any such support. Likewise, any who believe the ideas behind the "Daily Caller" article are legitimate need to provide evidence such as a rising crime rate, and show an unequivocal causal relationship between a change in policy and a rising crime rate. The "Daily Caller" certainly didn't do that, and neither have you. You've taken it upon yourself to order me to do your homework for you. I only do other people's homework when I feel like it, and your ludicrous attempt at authoritative hauteur doesn't motivate me at all. So it's up to you to provide some evidence that supports your position.

This for your silly command:




An example of the problem: There has been a rise in murder rates in many American cities. Anybody who tries to point to a rise in murder rates in New York City and say that a change in policy is the cause needs to provide credible evidence to show that is the case. Bald assertions are for losers.

 

You made the claim the the rates in NYC were dropping, not me. You need to show they are not Giuliani. You made the claim about rising murder rates, not me although they really did rise. That still has nothing to do with excusing crime because one race is more of an offender that the other races. Using that logic, murder arrests should be scaled back. After all, blacks are 6 times more likely to murder another than the rest of the population.

 

This is a blatant lie. I provided evidence that shows that the crime rate dropped all over the United States during Giuliani's time as mayor of New York City, and sarcastically implied that his policy had something to do with that fact. Let me explain it to you. There is no evidence that Giuliani had anything to do with crime rates dropping in the United States while he was mayor of New York City. Since crime rates were dropping all over the country, the claim that Giuliani was responsible for the drop in crime rates in New York City is questionable.

I provided a link to a source that examines the rise in murder rates in many cities in the US. The first step to producing a coherent argument is reading comprehension. It may help if you try harder at that.

I haven't mentioned race at all in this thread.

 

No, but I did in the OP or rather council member Melissa Mark-Viverito did. “We know that the system has been really rigged against communities of color in particular,” council member Melissa Mark-Viverito, a Democrat, told the Times. Or didn't you bother to read that part of the post?

 

You did nothing in the OP. Or rather you copy-pasted some fecal matter from the "Daily Caller" without acknowledging the source, leaving unwary readers to think that you'd written that post. That was dishonest of you, rlm's cents, and you just doubled down on your dishonesty by claiming the OP as something you'd produced yourself. Have you no self respect? Is integrity a completely foreign concept to you?

The fact is that the story's basic premise is completely unsupported. It seems to be little more than race-baiting. My interest is in the poor quality of the journalism, and how eager some people are to eat it up. Seeing somebody glurk up a completely undigested chunk of it is mildly interesting as well. Other than that--

 

I guess you think the 332 results for the quote don't count in your world. Now that you have not succeeded in disproving the racism presented, you can go hide again.

 

That was a nicely opaque post. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that somehow I'm hiding, go right ahead. Meanwhile you've provided nothing to support your contentions (or rather those of "Daily Caller") beyond "322 results for the quote" which, if nothing else is completely irrefutable, being incoherent, un-sourced, and lacking any context.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/n...ltering-how-police-handle-minor-offenses.html

 

Thanks for posting a link to that well written and detailed story. It's a remarkable contrast to the mindless gibbering of the "Daily Caller" that you tried to pass off as your own.

What is made clear in the story at that link is that the police support this approach, which gives them more options for dealing with minor offences, and that the police will be in charge of creating the rules for how city ordinances will be enforced under this policy. Also clearly explained in that story is the fact that "racism" (while cited by Mark-Viverito as an element in the writing of the new bills) is only one factor out of at least three in the actual reasoning behind this move.