4 ms·
To be clear, since it might not be obvious to some readers: the fear your parents had about playing outside is what the police might do to you, as opposed to co
by pimlottc 7y ago
To be clear, since it might not be obvious to some readers: the fear your parents had about playing outside is what the police might do to you, as opposed to concerns about crime or general violence, is that correct?
- 40acres 7y agoYes, and for good reason. NYC had a high crime rate in the 80s and 90s, once I was able to have my own day to day autonomy (mid teens, mid 2000s) the city was much safer. I understand the push for crime reduction policies, lots of minorities (who are victims of crimes themselves) wanted a tougher approach. Unfortunately the politics of the day was that the cruelest types of punishments won out. Three strikes and stop and frisk have devastated the community.
- burfog 7y agoStop-and-frisk feels like a major violation of rights, but it does work well. I think that doing this by surprise, or around where people live, is problematic. Setting up a limited region, with posted signs, is pretty reasonable. For example, the park might be such a region. Three strikes doesn't seem to be a violation of rights, and it simply makes sense. Removing bad people will improve the community. Some people simply will not abide by the rules of civilized society, and it is a dangerous mistake to pretend otherwise.
- mises 7y agoIf you're in America, that would (arguably) be a violation of your constitutional rights. Basically, the gov't isn't supposed to bother you until you committed a crime (until they have reasonable suspicion & a warrant or are in hot pursuit). The same thing bothers me about databases, surveillance, biometrics, TSA, stop-and-frisk: the government has no business treating me like a criminal, collecting my information, etc. until they've got a warrant.