This is what life under democrat rule looks like

Nope you're a right fighter

So there's no talking to you
jails are run by localities, and are for people awaiting trial or sentencing.....prisons are run by the State or Federal Govt and are for people serving their sentences.

Sure, there might be people that are serving time that get new charges, that are in prison....there also might be people with rather short sentences that never leave the jail...but in general that's the difference.
 
Nope you're a right fighter

So there's no talking to you
There's nothing to talk about - your statement was FALSE.
Is it that hard for you to admit you were wrong?
Hell, you don't even have to say "wrong", can you say "I was mistaken"? Or "my original statement was incorrect"?
Are you capable of even that?
 
jails are run by localities, and are for people awaiting trial or sentencing.....prisons are run by the State or Federal Govt and are for people serving their sentences.

Sure, there might be people that are serving time that get new charges, that are in prison....there also might be people with rather short sentences that never leave the jail...but in general that's the difference.
Blues Man will never acknowledge that because it would require him to admit he was wrong.
 
Not really… it’s your point that’s not being made or explained. I’m not going on a wild goose chase to find your point. If you can’t explain it then don’t make it

It's been made, I found an example of people using it as an excuse for the drop in crime as opposed to policy.

At this point it's on you.
 
There is nothing to support a causal link at best you have a correlation

but then there is this


NYPD’s deployment of extra police to high crime neighborhoods contributed far more to the crime reduction than the use of stop, question, and frisk. Research on the NYPD’s program of Operation Impact found that extra police deployed to high crime areas in New York was a major factor in the crime decline: a 12% to 15% reduction. The additional use of stop, question, and frisk made almost no difference. The stops only had a detectable impact on crime when the stops were based on probable cause, and these kinds of stops were very rare. Other research by Weisburd and colleagues also showed that stop, question, and frisk practices had only small associations with crime reduction (on the order 2%). And this study did not measure the effects of stops over and above increased officer deployment.

What can we conclude from this? Saturating high crime neighborhoods with extra police helped reduce crime in New York, but the bulk of investigative stops did not play a meaningful role in the crime reduction.

Impossible to prove. Of course they're going to talk it down, but they can't ignore the fact when it was used, crime and violent crime decreased. They just don't want to give credit to the methods used. Within a few years after it ended, crime went right back up again. All coincidence, huh?
 
aiZwaWQ9QXBp
 

Forum List

Back
Top