Is this website making America better?

And don't forget, stop and Frisk.

 

You moved the goalposts when you opened it up to the entire world. The OP was only referring to America.

And nice to see you again too.

 

Which was ruled unconstitutional as I recall.

 

PF FLAMEBATING rule VIOLATION ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

The OP Refers to the nation. So I added. Either way, like I state in another reply, the telephone was (and still does) doing all that, 24/7 long before Gore Launched his Interwebz

 

Source?

 

Obviously I disagreed with your opinion that :

But I respect your right to be a negative curmudgeon.

 

Not being negative.

Being honest, and real.

I'm not negative. I just generally detest most humans.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

 

According to all studies and to Giuliani himself, it was the arrest rate or more aggressive policing of crimes, especially for lesser crimes and misdemeanors. As well as stop and frisk. Nowhere are gun laws mentioned in review of the drop in crime.

 

Used in an unconstitutional manner.

Not that the policy was unconstitutional.

Large difference.

 

I will try not to 'waffle' because I think it should be fairly clear-cut. You should be able to "stand your ground" upon "your ground" -- i.e., your personal real estate property, your house, and that should include your ability to protect lives and property that you own (or lease, rent, etc.).

Examples:

1. 'Da boyz in da 'hood' come to do a home-invasion on you. KILL 'EM ALL.
2. Burglar in your home. Shoot him dead!
3. Trespassers on your property that do not make you or yours feel threatened. You can hold them at gunpoint, call the cops, and wait and wait, and WAIT. Probably best to threaten to gut-shoot him and then let him run away -- but if he makes any threatening moves, shoot him dead!

Here's an unusual one:

4. Guy is stealing your car or some piece of your properrty. If he's within the bounds of your property, shoot him dead. BUT, if he's left your property and headed down the street -- DO NOT SHOOT! Call the cops, and wait, and wait, and WAIT.

You'll notice that in all cases where I recommend firing your weapon, I say, "shoot to kill". That's because if you just wound the perp, chances are he'll come back and SUE YOU, and won't be prosecuted anyway... but, dead men don't sue.... The old police maxim is, "One in the head, and two in the chest...."

"The dead do not speak"....

 

I agree with this pretty much 100%

However we need some laws changed that of you are injured in any way while tresspassing the land owner should have no liability.
You should be able to dig a pit full of punji sticks and if someone else falls into it that's their own problem.
Yes that's an extreme example.

 

I agree with you that we should be able to 'booby-trap' our own property ON our own property with any kind of device we want -- so long as it does not impinge on the property of other people, or threaten them on their own property. But, the argument is that if the police or firemen need to come on your property for some valid reason, they could be hurt or killed, and yes, I can see the validity of that point of view.

But we also have laws which I think are way overly-invasive -- like FORCING a homeowner to build a fence around his own hot tub or swimming pool (or otherwise restrict entry) because some kid could come wandering in and drown in the damned thing. That is bullshit... parents are supposed to keep their children the hell OUT of other people's property!

 

So according to YOU that drop was just a COINCIDENCE and had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ACTUALLY ENFORCING the strict gun laws already on the books?

 

Thanks for providing your position, Cy.

I agree that anyone posing an actual threat to your own life or someone else justifies using lethal force. If they are just stealing then no, it does not.

Yes, you can hold them at gunpoint but if they try to leave then shooting them is NOT justifiable.

Anyone who is fleeing, with or without your property is NO LONGER A THREAT and therefore there is no justification for the use of lethal force.

 

No, not according to me. And you are welcome to your own opinion. But reviews from every angle, including the Mayor himself, attribute it to everything from an improving economy to hiring more Police, Police confidence in the Mayors support, busting petty crime, pitting the arrest stats under Dept. Chiefs to compete for either the gold star or the hairy eyeball. And a generally less tolerant approach to all criminal activity. I saw no reference to stricter enforcing of firearm regulations, or that they had ever gone lax in the first place, though stop and frisk probably removed some firearms from felons.

 

As is so often the case, Te, we have some significant points of agreement. Please don't misunderstand me, though -- I don't WANT to shoot anybody! If you shoot a person for ANY reason, even IF you are eventually completely exonerated, it would be an immense pain in the ass, full of trips to the police office, trips to your attorney's office (costing you several thousand dollars, whether it 'should' or not), court appearances, and total disruption of your life for weeks on end!

I agree that it would be better to just scare the living hell out of some thief or burglar, but you cannot know with certainty what that person is going to do, given the shifting circumstances... and those can literally vary on a second-to-second basis. For most SANE criminals, it would be enough to be angrily threatened with being gut-shot -- then let him run like hell to get away. But IF he's still on your property, and IF he's still trying to steal something, then, depending on where you live, you can put him down....

Even by letting him run, you take a considerable risk! As we've seen here in the Denver/Colorado Springs area recently, an armed robbery perp turned and ran from police officers, but he appeared to be fumbling in his pants for a gun! The officers killed him as he ran, but what would he have done if he had been able to pull out the gun that they DID find on his body? You see... it's all well and good to try to take the 'merciful' approach towards criminals, but, it can get YOU killed.... In short, people who commit crimes with firearms deserve to be shot -- and the great unknown factor, of course, when you confront a criminal, is knowing whether they are armed or not. It is senseless and dangerous to see such a person as anything other than a deadly threat....

Thus, anyone who barges into your life, threatening to commit crimes of any kind against you is a threat that you'd better take seriously, or, it could mean your death.

 

Thank you for confirming that it is YOUR opinion that it was JUST A COINCIDENCE!

 

While we agree in principle we are approaching this with vastly different assumptions. Yours are that there is ALWAYS an INTENT to cause harm by the intruder. Mine are that the average intruder just wants to grab whatever they can and escape as quickly as possible because time is NOT on their side. The longer they are where they are not wanted the greater their risk of being caught.

Since my approach is not a threat to the intruder they are unlikely to do anything more than take what they wanted and leave. Your confrontational approach gives them no option but to be aggressive towards you.

 

I agree, then, that on this point at least, we do have a fundamental disagreement. I will NOT allow a criminal to deliberately come into my life and STEAL from me. He has no right to do that whatever, and if he tries, I will try my best to stop him in every legal way! Oh, you can take the other approach and call 911 -- and wait, and wait, and WAIT. In many cases, once the police find out that no 'shots were fired', they don't even bother to show up at all until the next day! I'm not kidding!

No, Te, when we start allowing criminals to just barge in and steal whatever they want, we are aiding and encouraging more crime, anarchy, and social chaos -- of a kind that inevitably leads to violence, and much of that is deadly....

 

Still waiting for that "proof".

 

Again, you are making the wrong assumptions. There is no way for anyone to just "come in" as far as I am concerned. There are several layers of deterrence that will make them look for easier options than mine. As far as I am concerned AVOIDING a confrontation is preferable to having to deal with one which is why I have taken the trouble to put them in place.

Your second assumption is that I rely on the police which I don't. Besides my own deterrents I have neighbors who feel the same way as I do and we keep an eye out for each other. What is nice that there are more and more of these clusters of homes where this is happening which makes the entire area less welcome for intruders.

I do NOT rely upon firearms for my safety. As far as I am concerned they are LAST RESORT, not the first.

 

Well, I am glad that you and your neighbors have a kind of deterrent system that works for you. My neighbors and I have 'systems' that work for us. Fortunately, we are about the closest thing to a zero-crime neighborhood that I know of... but we never let our guard down, either. Have a great rest of your weekend!

 

Kind of like asking whether video games make people more violent or just give them a non-violent outlet to vent?