I think the article was intended more as an anti-Bloomberg screed than an actual discussion of policy.
I know but that's a dumb thing to criticize him for. Or a dumb way to criticize him for that thing. If the practice of stop and frisk is effective in reducing crime, the author ought to be pointing out that by denouncing it now, Bloomberg shows he's willing to dispense with policies that promote good public safety in order to run as a Democrat with a politically correct position.
The problem that Liberals have with Stop and Frisk is that it worked. It worked by profiling the people in an area that were statistically most likely to commit crime.
The problem that Conservatives have with Bloomberg is that they're worried he could win.
Now, as for me, I don't think he'll beat Trump but I worry about the money he's pouring into down-ballot races. That's where he'll have the most impact.
Hm, interesting point.
Stop and frisk?
I don't know about reducing crime, but it surely is a nigger daily reminder of who can stop and frisk whenever the fuck they want
(post is archived)