[QUOTE=PaulS;1115830]"We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals "

Neither am I. But if people are dying in these numbers, and we want to stop that quickly, the law-abiding citizens might have to accept dealing with things that they might not happen to like. If it keeps more of their kids alive, isn't it worth getting frisked? I don't like taking my shoes off at the airport. But I'm happy to do it. It's not being done because the TSA agent is a pervert who has a foot fetish and wants to gawk at my size 13's.

"The studies I have read think a # of factors contributed to a lowering of crime. And yes, S&F did contribute. But other things contributed more. Some of the factors had nothing to do with policing"

Great. As I said, let's round up all the authors of the studies and have a conference to discuss things over some apple martinis and hot toddies, while a few toddlers get shot to death because we're so petrified of offending someone. That sounds like the liberal, enlightened, sophisticated, progressive, nuanced way to approach it. Meanwhile, affluent white people can sleep comfortably in their mansions, because they can afford to live in a place where these gang bangers know to stay out of.

Let's try a jobs program first. I remember State Dept spokesidiot Marie Harf saying that to defeat terrorism, we need to give these people jobs. In her words, I didn't believe what I was hearing, not because it was stupid, but because her solution was too nuanced for my simple-minded brain. So let's try that.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115833]You are voluntarily agreeing to that by buying the plane ticket. Someone walking down the public street doesn't have a choice in being subject to a search.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115835]"Actually you said "which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop"

Correct. Which unlike things I would actually endorse, this would involve no inconvenience to the law abiding. Other than the fact that many would get killed in the ensuing bloodbath. But I guess we want to finish where Margaret Sanger left off.

"You are voluntarily agreeing to that by buying the plane ticket"

That's true. But my point is still valid...I don't like taking my shoes off, but I do it, because I am rational enough to understand why it's being done.

"Someone walking down the public street doesn't have a choice in being subject to a search"

I can't argue with that, Paul. All I can argue is that if I was living there, I'd be willing to trade some comfort for the hope of safety.

yellow was a horrible choice

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115831][QUOTE=detbuch;1115829]Actually, my first statement, which you left out in your reply, is the key: "Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision."

What was supposedly unconstitutional in the case to which you referred is that it targeted a specific race, not that the practice itself is unconstitutional.

As I said, the "broken windows" policy of Giuliani as it is practiced in Detroit cannot be proved to be racist toward minorities since the overwhelming percent of its population is minority. And, after Detroit started using the practice, which includes stop and search, crime went down. You may dispute that the practice is the cause, but you cannot prove it either way. But it is not unconstitutional on the grounds of racial discrimination (unless it targeted Whites) so what's wrong with the policy? If Chicago could do it in a way as not to target blacks, I presume it would be OK. But that would be difficult, if not impossible, since the crime is preponderantly in the Black communities.

yes. it was so profound I should of used a different color so all could see it.

You have a lot of perserverance.