Comments on: NYC Says Stop-Frisk Is Down; Mayor Cites Crime Drop

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:04:21 +0000

No. 4: I will work on my anslytical skills if you work on your sbelling and poof-reading.

And I re-read the article before I commented. Crime has been dropping steadily for the past 20 years – since the end of the Dinkins administration – so by that logic, stop-and-frisk should have been dropping throughout the Bloomberg administration.

By: BoroPork

BoroPork — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:33:59 +0000

Senor nfgo3. While I normally don’t agree with King Bloomberg, I think you need to re-read the article. He is stating that crime is down because of previous stop and frisk getting guns and criminals off the street. It might serve you best the sharpen those anslytical skills.

By: Ben Levi

Ben Levi — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 02:08:53 +0000

Actually it makes perfect sense.

According to Police Stop and frisk is targeted around areas with High Crime and is pre-ceaded by quastionable behaviour.

As such, High Crime would cause the Stats to go up, and then as crime goes down as a result of criminals being knowing if they walk around witha gun or stolen goods they have a good chance of being caught the stop and frisk actions will also go down.

By: jew yorker

jew yorker — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 23:23:16 +0000

I agree. Mayor Dumberg’s logic is illogical.

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:45:31 +0000

Something in Mayor Blumberg’s statement (second paragraph of article) does not compute: If stop-and-frisks are down, shouldn’t crime go up, if stop-and-frisk is a crime deterrent?