This is bull****.

what do you know? I have lived more than half my life in nyc. they dont cause physical violence outside their circles. I know my fair share of them , and they are no threat to outsiders . hippy trust fund girls/guys would not be free to roam the LES or williamsburg etc etc if your stance is true.

Not a lot. I mean sure, I served on a joint task force of the US Marshal's fugitive squad that specifically focused on gang members, but I'm sure my knowledge of this is way under some random ITG who views these predators as his friends.

My sincerest condolences.
FYP

A. Nyc is home to me and I love it , so no condolences needed .
B. you keep collecting those paychecks pal, if your kind wanted to really curb crime, you guys have the power to, you all prefer job security and nice pensions.
C. you dont know jack **** about NYC . cite me prevalent gang violence/death of innocent bystanders , I can probably cite you more police shootings if we go back 12 months.
d. where did i type in friends? knowing people from grade school /neighborhood does not make them friends.

It's ok bro, no ones trying to take your cannoli.

my statement came about from someone who was quoting those gangs as being a big part of crime in major cities , including ny.

And I was answering why someone asked why DblJ would want to drop nyc, chicago, la or w/e cities from the list...

And I know enough to know that the Mayors Army (you likely refer to them as "NYPD") cook the books on crime stats with stunning regularity, so nothing that comes from COMPSTAT I believe.

Here's a nice article about Chicago:

Source

I look forward to Case Closed coming in and displaying the same level of butthurt as you LOL.

How does set up a surveillance man in the parking lot, confirm that is in fact the targets motorcycle, put a takedown team in an unmarked vehicle near the bike and wait for him to return to his bike compare? It seems that the part where you go to the door puts someone at risk. I am thinking (feel free to point out where I am wrong) that it would be much safer to arrest the guy in the open where there aren't corners for people to be hiding behind to ambush the police.

So in 90% of your posts you try to convince us you have inside knowledge that the entire government is complete bumbling idiots, and then you try to name drop the same people to help your credibility?

Cite?

I'm going to assume this is a response to my question to BAIDS "have you ever witnessed cops handle guns?", to which I respond this isn't some secretive insider knowledge. Ask anyone who's ever worked at a public gun range. It's not a secret at all, it's merely more obvious to me because I spent 10 yrs with a feeling of dread at every qualification, not for fear that I'd fail, but fear some bozo who's gun hasn't left his holster since the last time he tried to qualify will negligently shoot me.

No one is saying all cops are bumbling idiots. Just these.

Wat?

You're correct in that if the total objective is safety, your plan is better.

You have to consider OT etc as well. You'll notice my plan is primarily built on the foundation that he will run, not that he will fight. That's why I sent the officers to the door. I think in a situation like this, the likelihood from greatest to least is:

1: Run like hell
2: Peacefully go into arrest
3: Violently fight.

Notice I'm also sending clearly uniformed officers to the door, who will be instructed to immediately ID themselves as police, creating the most likely outcome of him running, which we're positioned for.

Plus we've got enough manpower on scene that if he does start firing then that can be handled as well.

DBL,

I believe the point these guys are trying to make is that not a lot of innocent white people are getting shot, ergo no problem.

Sorry, must have got you confused with someone else, isnt there some staunch libertarian on this board who happens to work for the government?

Yea, not me.

I don't work for the govt anymore, and I wouldn't be considered a "staunch" libertarian.