Bloomberg: Right About The Stats. Wrong About The Solution

So folks are finding out that Bloomberg has said some true things about crime, particularly violent crime in NYC. They are SHOCKED. SHOCKED I tell you that Bloomberg,who got to see the data the head of the city of NY, stated that "minorities" were the "usual suspects" as well as victims of violence with guns ( I hate the term "gun violence" since guns are inanimate objects). Below is a clip from ABL where he, unfortunately defends the practice of Stop and Frisk:

Now I'm not going to dispute Bloomberg's commentary on the stats. I've written on the subject and any honest person who has seen the stats knows the deal. So this leads me to my major problem with Bloomberg: He's a tyrant.

Bloomberg is one of those white men who has a God complex. He thinks it's his job to "take care" of people whether they like it or not. He's the typical paternalistic liberal with a huge bank account. So for Mike, the ends justifies the means. If you have rights that get in the way of "getting it done", then to hell with your rights.

There is absolutely no doubt that Stop and Frisk is and was effective. I am not disputing that. The problem is that Stop And Frisk grossly violated the 4th Amendment rights of the citizens of NYC. This is what ABL apparently doesn't get or doesn't particularly care about. Simply being in a "high crime area" is not grounds for a warrant-less search. Yes, the police used the bullshit of "furtive movements" to justify these stops on paper, but what exactly is a furtive movement? Is going for your phone a "furtive movement"? Ask Diallo about that one.

Being black in a black high crime area doesn't rise to reasonable suspicion either. The fact of the matter is that even though black crime rates are many multiples of white crime rates, the vast majority of black people are law abiding. And given the high use of public transport in NYC and it's infamous nightlife, being out and about in the wee hours of the morning is also not a good reason to suspect someone of criminal intent.

Bloomberg knew this would come out hence his "I'm sorry" media blitz right before he announced his run.

We see you.

The other reason I am bothered by ABLs acceptance of Stop and Frisk is that by accepting it, he undermines his own support of the 2nd Amendment. After all, if your 4th Amendment rights are negotiable based on public safety then it is reasonable to say that your 2nd Amendment rights are as well. I accept neither argument. And this is also why Bloomberg is dangerous. He has no care for the 4th and he has no qualms about nuking the 2nd. See Virginia for what comes soon after a Bloomberg inauguration.

A man who is convinced of his own righteousness and that of his causes, who would steamroll any group standing in the way of his vision is a dangerous person. Back in the day when climate scientists were so convinced that we were all going to freeze to death that they seriously considered melting the ice caps, Nixon (I believe) told them to take a hike. A man like Bloomberg might likely do something that stupid 'cause he believes in what is currently passing as climate science.