Since it is his adopted hometown and all and is probably most deadly place outside of ISIS HQ.
I'll go first.
1. He said bad things about guns.
Go!
I'll go first.
1. He said bad things about guns.
Go!
ITT let's discuss Obama's efforts to curb Chicago violence
- Thread starter okstatefan1
- Start date
Curious to know what Feds he's talking about.
At this point, what difference does it make? Nothing will fix south Chicago.
Maybe the DOJ, the same feds that 0bama used to go after the police departments who had officers killing the angelic role model black guys because #racism, except Trump's DOJ would be armed with common sense.
you put national guard and humvees on every corner things will get real in a hurry
You know what the lead time is for hiring and training new officers is, so that's not an immediate solution. Most federal agents I have met have no idea how to make the most simple of arrests. They're great at putting together a case for a grand jury because that's what they do. But make an immediate impact on big city crime? I'm skeptical.
I was being a little sarcastic, but not completely.
The solution starts in holding people accountable for their crimes. Chicago has an issue with that. I watched a segment on O'Reilly today where it was suggested that the Attorney General can direct the US Attorney in Chicago to have the FBI and local law enforcement work together to prosecute cases.
Looks great on the white board in the training room. (Not a criticism of you at all.)
I'll bet lack of accountability has a lot to do with insufficient number of prosecutors and lack of prison and jail space to store convicts. So when you start to charge people with federal crimes, you'll soon end up with the same problem at the federal level as you have in the state.
Still skeptical.
They weren't talking about charging people with federal crimes, just using the FBI to assist local law enforcement. I don't have any answers and don't know how Chicago needs to proceed to reduce the ridiculous violence. I have read that cops have backed away from their duties because of politics since the 2014 shooting of that 17 year old. That's definitely a big problem that needs to be addressed.
I didn't mean to put you in the position of having to defend something that you didn't say in the first place.
And institute "stop and frisk". NYC did that and the number of crimes and guns on the street decreased until DeBlasio stopped the program.
The bill oreilly interview explains best. Should be an easy google. The last ten seconds of the interview is the most true thing about this whole shit show.
Yep, obviously the issue with homicides in Chicago is/was Obama.
HOMICIDE RATE IN CHICAGO BY YEAR! (1964 to 2016)
1964: 390
1965: 396
1966: 512
1966: 510
1967: 548
1967: 522
1968: 645
1969: 715
1970: 810
1971: 824
1972: 711
1973: 862
1974: 970
1975: 818
1976: 814
1977: 823
1978: 787
1979: 857
1980: 863
1981: 877
1982: 668
1983: 729
1984: 741
1985: 666
1986: 744
1987: 691
1988: 660
1989: 742
1990: 851
1991: 928
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 602
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 516
2013: 441
2014: 432
2015: 492
2016: 762
As you can see, for most of his years in office, the homicide rate in Chicago was actually about 1/2 of what it was during its peak crime years back in the early 90's.
HOMICIDE RATE IN CHICAGO BY YEAR! (1964 to 2016)
1964: 390
1965: 396
1966: 512
1966: 510
1967: 548
1967: 522
1968: 645
1969: 715
1970: 810
1971: 824
1972: 711
1973: 862
1974: 970
1975: 818
1976: 814
1977: 823
1978: 787
1979: 857
1980: 863
1981: 877
1982: 668
1983: 729
1984: 741
1985: 666
1986: 744
1987: 691
1988: 660
1989: 742
1990: 851
1991: 928
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 602
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 516
2013: 441
2014: 432
2015: 492
2016: 762
As you can see, for most of his years in office, the homicide rate in Chicago was actually about 1/2 of what it was during its peak crime years back in the early 90's.
Wood it's no secret both parties don't give a shit about black neighborhoods. Hopefully someone sends in Feds and does actually care.
Ok, so please point me to that section of the Constitution which gives "power" to the executive branch to do anything about crime in an individual state? The reality is that EVERY President, is severely limited under the Constitution as to what they can do in a matter where the State's have been given autonomous authority under the Constitution. (Which includes creating criminal laws, state justice systems, criminal courts, and enforcement of those laws.)
I'll amend my answer to address HSH's question about "sending in the 'Feds'"? Again, please point to me where in the Constitution where the President has more say about enforcing state criminal statutes than the State that created them. Secondly, where from within the Constitution would the President derive his power/authority to do so?
Felons who commit crimes with guns they aren't supposed to have can be prosecuted by the doj which we have seen is a political arm of the executive branch. According to what I saw last night.
HSH, in some instances there may be some concurrent jurisdiction over criminals between the states and Feds.
A good example would be where someone uses the mail to defraud someone. In that case, the state would original jurisdiction over that person on the basis of fraud, while the Fed's would have jurisdiction over that person on the basis they used the US Mail to conduct their fraudulent operation. (Your example of the existence of the Fed's having concurrent or even original jurisdiction over "gun" issues is another.)
But in the vast majority of cases and in particular homicide, its the extremely rare situation where the Fed Govt has jurisdiction over the person who commits murder.
But let me ask you this? Is there any existing evidence that in those cases where the Fed Govt may have original or concurrent jurisdiction, that they have been failing to prosecute? (Or that the FBI Office in Chicago has been failing to do their job?)
Obviously, Chicago in a bad place right now. While virtually every other major city in the US has seen homicide (and crime rates in general) drop over the last 20 yrs or so, for some reason in the last 2 yrs Chicago's has shot up, reversing a long-term trend as evidenced by the statistics I posted above.
You're not going to get an argument from me that the City of Chicago is failing it's citizens and that Rahm Emanuel and the Police in Chicago need and deserve to have their feet held to the fire, along with the State of Illinois. It's just that I find a hard time placing blame on the President, when Constitutionally it's nearly all a "STATE" issue, not a Federal one.
A good example would be where someone uses the mail to defraud someone. In that case, the state would original jurisdiction over that person on the basis of fraud, while the Fed's would have jurisdiction over that person on the basis they used the US Mail to conduct their fraudulent operation. (Your example of the existence of the Fed's having concurrent or even original jurisdiction over "gun" issues is another.)
But in the vast majority of cases and in particular homicide, its the extremely rare situation where the Fed Govt has jurisdiction over the person who commits murder.
But let me ask you this? Is there any existing evidence that in those cases where the Fed Govt may have original or concurrent jurisdiction, that they have been failing to prosecute? (Or that the FBI Office in Chicago has been failing to do their job?)
Obviously, Chicago in a bad place right now. While virtually every other major city in the US has seen homicide (and crime rates in general) drop over the last 20 yrs or so, for some reason in the last 2 yrs Chicago's has shot up, reversing a long-term trend as evidenced by the statistics I posted above.
You're not going to get an argument from me that the City of Chicago is failing it's citizens and that Rahm Emanuel and the Police in Chicago need and deserve to have their feet held to the fire, along with the State of Illinois. It's just that I find a hard time placing blame on the President, when Constitutionally it's nearly all a "STATE" issue, not a Federal one.
wood i think this blame thing is the old way of doing business in washington
everybody points a finger with one hand and gets jobbed with the other
trump was elected on being a solutions guy
as for constitutionality you of all people know it's just a piece of paper lawyers everyday get paid to work around
Ok how about obamas rhetoric. He took the time to intervene all time with his mouth and we could cite dozens of examples. He NEVER criticized Rahm or the governor or his own black people for the carnage. He was supposed to do something for black people that needed a hand up, that was one of the things I was anxious to see. He never used his bull horn to get the gangs to lay down their guns. Didn't even try.
I would think that while lining up a putt surrounded by armed guards knowing sister sister were safe at thei private school surrounded by guards that it might have dawned on him that mammies were sending their kids out to school honestly thinking they would never see them again. I get George w bush because he was a racist repube but hope and change we're a lie. Professor gates gets a beer summit. Jamaal and tanisha got forgotten.
I would think that while lining up a putt surrounded by armed guards knowing sister sister were safe at thei private school surrounded by guards that it might have dawned on him that mammies were sending their kids out to school honestly thinking they would never see them again. I get George w bush because he was a racist repube but hope and change we're a lie. Professor gates gets a beer summit. Jamaal and tanisha got forgotten.
I would disagree with the bolded statement above. There are a ton of opportunities for the Feds to go into Chicago to investigate both violations of the Brady Act and other federal firearms crimes (use of a firearm in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, use of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence.....of which there are a bunch). They come in investigating those, discover or decide they are not going to be prosecuted federally and then simply turn them over to the state.
Ironically, it's all those evil "gun control" laws that end up giving Trump the authority to do what he appears to be proposing.
Love too be situational in my constitutional conservatism.
It scares me when Sys says stuff like this.....bothers me even more when it comes from a fan of a supposed constitutionally conservative President.
Yep.
Don't really know what that means, but suggesting the Constitution is just a piece of paper to be worked around is a scary position no matter when you came to it.
you've suggested multiple ways of enforcing federal laws within a state.
i'm not sure that's what the framers had in mind
