Dumbo NYC

I agree- thank you to the NYPD for taking action! The problem is not the cops taking breaks. My issue is that I have observed them all taking a break at the same time. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to eat lunch in shifts so there is still a presence on the streets?

what happens after the "several weeks" when the tower gets taken away? It's just a temporary solution and a pretty poor one at that.

@roadkill:

What do you propose? I guess we should be thankful for a mere Concern Troll after all the actual trolling on this topic, but please suggest something for discussion other than "it sucks".

More cops? How many? For how long? What would satisfy you?

Me personally, I'm fine with the Fun Tower. It certainly shows they are taking the situation about as seriously as they can. I'm sure manpower and equipment are precious, so it seems unrealistic to ask for a cop on every corner indefinitely. The Tower installation shows that the cops want to make it clear that eyes are open.

Making those arrests so quickly and getting the tower installed are about as much as one could hope for, no?

what do I propose? Armed citizens and a better attitude towards self-defense. If the wanna-be mugger start getting beaten or shot dead by residents they're not going to be too keen on prowling the neighborhood.

Every step to keep the streets safe seems to revolve around "oh - we have to get the city to do something!!". What's wrong with us keeping ourselves safe? Are you all children?

@roadkill-

Your proposal is simply inconsistent with the organizing principles of modern American crime prevention. The main problem with your proposal is that, while people posting here may not be children (as you suggest), there actually are children out there, and elderly people, and others who aren't physically able to protect themselves as well as you may be. If the city doesn't respond to situations like this, those people are incredibly vulnerable. But that's not the only problem. In addition, most citizens are not trained in the use of weapons or other self-defense techniques, and arming those people would create a greater risk that innocent citizens are hurt, not a lesser one. Maybe you envision a wide-scale training program meant to provide citizens who are physically able to defend themselves the training (and also the weapons?) they needed to protect themselves without risking the safety of others, but I don't think--and I doubt I'm alone here--that such a program is practicable. The list goes on...

In short, your proposal is unrealistic and I question whether you offer it in good faith.

John:

"an armed society is a polite society"

It is no coincidence that in states with a higher instance of firearm ownership, violent crime is considerably lower than those that make it difficult for their citizens.

It's time for the rather distasteful experiment in curtailment of 2nd amendment rights to come to an end. It has had the opposite effect of what it's liberal propenents envisiged: reducing violent crime. It will take years to change citizen's perceptions and attitudes, but change them we must. We can no longer depend on the state to keep us safe.

Your reply shows just how alien these concepts are to you, but they are the principles on which this nation was founded and the bedrock of our freedom. It's rather frightening that people such as yourself have forgotten what freedom is. I sincerely hope you never run for political office.

After the removal of skywatch ....they should install cameras like they have in bedstuy and clinton hill,crown heights and prospect heights. smile....cause you might be on candid camera.and dont pick your nose in public either.i never realized how many cameras they have till i started looking up at the lampposts, etc.

roadkill-you are dead wrong on this topic and that's all i have to say.

I love the NYPD thats right i said i love the NYPD. If you dont like them go live in some hillbille town and deal with a sheriff see how you like that.

@roadkill-

Just a quick response. You write:

"Your reply shows just how alien these concepts are to you, but they are the principles on which this nation was founded and the bedrock of our freedom."

First, my reply does not, because the concepts are not. I specifically began the post by saying that what you proposed is "inconsistent with the organizing principles of modern American crime prevention" to try to avoid a reply like yours. I don't think you can disagree with the fact that your proposal runs contrary to modern principles of American crime prevention. Second, I specifically referred to those principles as modern in an effort to avoid an argument about original intent and the Second Amendment. Third, since you've raised the issue, I have to correct you: the original intent of the Second Amendment was not to allow armed citizens to protect themselves against one another (at the time there was little crime even though there was nothing that remotely resembled a police force as exists today), but to make certain the citizenry was able to protect itself against its own government--much like the founders just had defended themselves against what they believed to be a British government that was ruling unjustly. You cannot honestly believe that original intent makes any sense today; advances in weaponry have made it impossible for American citizens to overthrow its own government by force. I am not debating whether or not citzens should have the right to be armed (for the record, I think they should), my point simply is that your understanding of the Second Amendment is misinformed.

I'm also wondering what happens when the skybooth gets removed in a few weeks. Sid from Brooklyn had a good post in the other skybooth thread:

"You remember that Captain Able said he would do what was necessary to make sure this was under control. He was ridiculed on line here for saying that. He also said that it would be helpful if the door people came out on the street instead of staying in the lobbies. The response by some that it wasn’t their job. Crime prevention is everyone’s job. The police have responded now its your turn."

Everyone who cares should raise this issue in your building amongst your neighbors, reach out to your condo board or tenants association regarding the security of your building and the immediate outdoor vicinity. I would also urge everyone to continue calling Yassky's office (sorry to the nice people there who have been so patiently fielding our calls), and the 84th Precinct to what happens when the skybooth is removed -- what is the longterm plan for safety in this neighborhood?

dieselfuel:

You have nothing to say other than "you're wrong so there!"? Debating seems to be a foreign subject with you.

John:

It saddens me that people like you have become so blind to the principles of the constitution, and how you're so eager to interpret it to suit your liberal agenda. The words have not changed, the intent has not changed, only your viewpoints have changed.

I suggest you re-read what I posted and take a long, hard look at the crimenal statistics in NYC compared to states with a more origional interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Then come back and try posting a more informed response.

roadkill: take another look at the states with a more "origional" interpretation of the 2nd amendment, when you can find one with a NYC in it, then we can sit down and compare statistics. in the meantime, don't hurt anybody out there with your concealed weapon. or worse, hope you fare well when you the perps take your weapon from you if you ever have the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

2nd amendment interpretations aside, all those who would prefer to have a weapon when confronted by a violent gang of youths with a metal pipe prepared to beat you to death raise your hand. All those who would prefer to have no weapon raise your hand. I thought so.

@ roadkill--

Please don't ever feel sorry for me. I've made an obvious mistake by trying to address you on an intellectual level that you just can't achieve. That's my mistake. Please, go ahead with your agenda, please don't realize that, frankly, it is only dumb people who think that strapping a pistol to their waist will fix things. You cite ideas like principles of the Constitution (setting aside that the perversion of those ideals is offensive in a way that I don't have time to describe, i.e., for roadkill since he needs it spelled out--it is disgusting that you pretend to use the principles of the Constitution to support your position) and liberal agenda but I'm certain you could not define neither. I engaged you thinking someone who is obviously unintelligent may be open to persuasion of reason and ethics. I was wrong. You, sir, are worthless. I hope that the next time you draw your weapon, someone shoots you in the head.

@ roadkill--

Please don't ever feel sorry for me. I've made an obvious mistake by trying to address you on an intellectual level that you just can't achieve. That's my mistake. Please, go ahead with your agenda, please don't realize that, frankly, it is only dumb people who think that strapping a pistol to their waist will fix things. You cite ideas like principles of the Constitution (setting aside that the perversion of those ideals is offensive in a way that I don't have time to describe, i.e., for roadkill since he needs it spelled out--it is disgusting that you pretend to use the principles of the Constitution to support your position) and liberal agenda but I'm certain you could not define neither. I engaged you thinking someone who is obviously unintelligent may be open to persuasion of reason and ethics. I was wrong. You, sir, are worthless. I hope that the next time you draw your weapon, someone shoots you in the head.

John:

You seem to think of yourself as an intellectual, but, like a typical liberal, you have no rebuttal to the argument presented to you other than insults. I hope that one day you'll come to some kind of realisation, until then people like will will watch your back.

Don't liberals pride themselves on being the ones tolerent to the viewpoints of others? Or is that just the viewpoints that agree with them?

Blow me

at poster "?" - it's a typical response and one I've become used to. When I point out how an armed citizen is safer than an unarmed one, I get told that I should be worried about hurting others accidentally or having my weapon taken away from me.

You, sir, are the very worst form of coward. You are afraid of that which you know nothing about. Don't worry though - I'll protect you until you become able to look after yourself

it's a typical response because it's correct. every martial arts and self defense teacher will tell you the same thing with good reason.

when you run into a gang of six teenagers who are bored and trying to show off for each other, stupidly brave because they're in a pack, and probably armed with something other than their fists and feet that can do alot of damage to you very quickly, what are you going to do? are you going to wave your piece and expect them to stain their pants and run away? are you going to shoot every one of them? which one will you cap first when they're around you in a circle? do you expect an old lady or a mother and child to carry a gun and wield it like javier bardem?

you are the very worst kind of bogus cro-magnon wuss who thinks he's brave until he's in the shit. good luck to you when you run into trouble thinking your gun will save you. you've clearly given yourself the right name although i suspect you think it has the opposite meaning.

grow up, put your tiny dick away, and let the cops do their job.

No one charges into gunfire. No one. Not one kid, not six kids, not a hundred. No matter how stupidly brave they are.

Unlike weapons that require great strength or skill, guns level the playing field. The brute physical strength of a person holding a gun does not matter. An old lady becomes as strong as a gang of six.

That's exactly why cops carry them to protect themselves. That's why law abiding citizens should be allowed to as well.

cops go through rigorous training to learn how to correctly wield a gun. the average citizen will fumble and get their piece taken from them. or worse, they'll hit an innocent person on the street or shoot into someone's window if they even manage to fire a round. anyone can pull a gun on someone, few know how to use it properly.

?, you make legitimate points about the need to ensure responsible gun use across a wide body of citizens of different aptitudes.

It would be very straightforward to establish a licensing and training program to ensure law abiding citizens who do carry guns in public are able to do so responsibly and with an appropriate level of skill. Make the skill level requirements the same as those required of law enforcement officers if you like.

Just as how we recognize that driving a potentially extremely lethal fast moving car requires a minimum level of skill, awareness of the law, and physical aptitude. Instead of denying citizens the right to drive, the DMV was established to effectively test and license John Q. Publics of all stripes to ensure those who do drive meet minimum standards of competence.

i don't begrudge anyone the right to bear arms, if done with knowledge, care, respect and responsibility, but i do get angry when people suggest that guns are THE answer, and the police are for wimps, as roadkill suggests.

everyone deserves to be able to walk around freely and safely without fear of attack. a parent should not be armed when they're out with their child. the average citizen should not feel that they HAVE to be armed in order to be safe.

NYC, and DUMBO in particular, cannot function as militia societies, because as john wrote above, that does not cover the weaker and defenseless members of our neighborhood: "there actually are children out there, and elderly people, and others who aren’t physically able to protect themselves as well as you may be." it is so irresponsible to look at this issue and use testosterone amped logic to remove the police from the equation. the police have to be the answer, it's the most democratic solution, and really i'd rather have them pulling the trigger than you or me or my next door neighbor.

There is crime in DUMBO? Wow, I thought only us poor people in Crown Heights and other still-affordable neighborhoods had to endure such things...why test this out in DUMBO though I might ask

roadkill- i don't debate on these blogs. only face to face.

whoa! you mean mano mano, toe to toe? OK, afther school in the parking lot.

hey roadkill. time to return the deathwish videos to blockbuster and get back to reality.

Is this guy roadkill for real? He proposes that arming all citizens would make the streets safer? There's lots of citizens armed in Basra these days and I wouldn't call that place very safe.

I'm sure roadkill has a ton of experience playing the Deer Hunter game in bars and he's probably really wicked at that. Based on his experience shooting a little red light at a TV screen he probably considers himself an expert shot. Heck I'm willing to be that he's got the high score at Barcade.

Dudes like roadkill need to give their collective heads a shake.

personally I think all you hipsters need to wake
up. most of you assholes grew up in the burbs. so don't even try this macho game. I grew up in a shit hole of a neighborhood and learn hand to hand combat. if you grew up in my nabe. you would have crap your pants. roadkill !

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."- Benjamin Franklin

Personally, I am creeped out by the tower thing. I have read some of you referring to this action as "overkill"... I tend to agree but then again, I was not one of those who lost my senses over a slight increase of crime. Keep in mind that I am not bad-mouthing any of you who were so concerned about the events. You have full right to voice your concerns. But there are times where one must take into account that a high number of complaints will produce a grand display . This display may or may not be effective but is to quiet or slow the incoming complaints. Its the classic "See, we are doing our job" maneuver.

But at what cost?

How many of you have noticed the dramatic increase of vehicles being towed since the tower was brought in? Yeah, yeah yeah... the law is the law but should we expect the police to be present and rule crime with an iron fist, well, we have no room to complain.

I have also read of people urging individuals to defend themselves. If you just can't go on living without your precious ipod, have at it... but in the real, logical world, possessions are not worth a life. If your life is threatened, it is your duty to bring the situation to a swift end... be it by running, screaming, or what have you but in no other instance should this be an option.

Not only do we need an effective neighborhood watch but we need to get the word out about any local self defense classes. We need to arm ourselves with practical detourents and/or weapons. Pepper spray, a key chain panic whistle, or a stun gun can be effective. (P.S. stun guns do not work like they do in the movies. Learn how to use it before you rely on it.) A camera phone can also be a great help in identifying an attacker. We need to alert any potential criminal that an official neighborhood watch does exist. Posting signs can do this well.

I could sit here all day long and preach about the things we need to do or have but really it all comes down to looking out for one another and traveling smart.

Now the gated community idea... If that is truly what you want, move to Arizona. Isolate yourself. Such a decision would have intense effects upon this neighborhood. Right now, we have a flourishing community. Should we surround ourselves out of fear and/or distaste for our extended neighbors, our neighborhood would surely fail.

On another note, I promise that should I ever run across an individual in need of my assistance in a dangerous situation, I will not hesitate to lend a hand. I've got your back, neighbor.

I should rephrase something...

I have also read of people urging individuals to defend themselves. If you just can’t go on living without your precious ipod, have at it… but in the real, logical world, possessions are not worth a life. If your life is threatened, it is your duty to bring the situation to a swift end… be it by running, screaming, or what have you but keep in mind that it is a very real possibility that you may suffer a fatal blow of some sort. Defend yourself if you must. Hold onto that thin thread that is life for as long as you can... in any way that you can.

Be safe, friends.

I can't understand why the more intelligent among you get roped into these pointless, inane debates with extremist trolls like roadkill. You'll never change his mind, he'll always be looking for a fight, and your engaging and enraging him is clearly his reward.

Keep these discussions informative, productive, and sane and please ignore the obviously extremist commentators.

Well said DanielB.

Personally, I really am comforted living in a surveillance society. I feel secure in the knowledge that the authorities are photographing, recording, and scanning me with high-powered sensors. Basking in the cool glow of their spotlights gives me that extra bit of safety that I have felt lacking in my life.

I trust my government always to do the right and just thing without prejudice or discrimination based on socio-economic status.

I eagerly await the time when I find myself stopped on street-corner checkpoints and asked to present my identification--just to feel that extra bit of love--a love only possible when living in a surveillance / authoritarian society.

--Winston Smith

Your double-think is showing, Winston. ;)