If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   NYPD cops told to stand down by police-union to avoid any lawsuits from stop-and-frisk   (nypost.com) divider line 99
    More: Interesting, Benevolent Association, church members, N.Y.P.D.  
•       •       •

5809 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2013 at 5:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-24 07:29:57 PM  

Latinwolf: cameroncrazy1984: Man, there was a whole lot of fearmongering in there. Apparently, if the cops aren't allowed to do whatever they want, crime will "skyrocket"

That's always been a police union tactic, it comes down to "if you down don't let our members be above the law, crime will skyrocket".

 
2013-08-24 07:36:12 PM  
Detaining and frisking someone for weapons requires at a minimum "reasonable suspicion" which must be supported by   "specific and articulable facts"; "taken together with rational inferences from those facts" that there is criminal activity afoot. If LE can't articulate RS, you should be "free to go" about your business.  In most States you don't even have to produce ID or even state your name in less there is Probable Cause to arrest you and or you are arrested.

Just detaining and frisking someone on a "hunch" is a violation of their rights.  Apparently LE who actually have RS can detain you for about 20 minutes.  If someone actually manages to stfu and not incriminate themselves for that 20min they have to cut you loose if you ask if you are free to go.

LE can lie to you, which they do so often they forget that they will eventually be put in check by people who have a clue.


There's video out there of people telling cops to fark off when they start in with the lies and manipulation.  Some of the videos have LE actually chortling and sending people on their way when they demonstrate their basic knowledge of the laws governing police encounters.

I personally appreciate LE for the most part, but consenting to them doing whatever the hell they want is almost as stupid as  letting a criminal do whatever they want to you.
 
2013-08-24 07:37:08 PM  

Fark It: TuteTibiImperes: New York and Chicago are both large multiracial multiethnic cities with huge wealth inequality, a history of gang violence, and strong firearm control legislation. NYC has a crime rate much lower than Chicago, why is that?

NYC has priced a lot of the criminal element out of the city.  It has a growing population and a gigantic tax base.  The city is saturated with cops.  Chicago and NYC have roughly the same amount of officers per capita, but in NYC they're are twice as many cops per square mile as in Chicago.  And New York's gang problems pale in comparison to Chicago's.  Chicago is also more corrupt than NYC, and it's likely there is more ghost payroll in Chicago than in NYC.


FACT: No research has ever proven the effectiveness of New York City's stop-and-frisk regime, and the small number of arrests, summonses, and guns recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective. Crime data also do not support the claim that New York City is safer because of the practice. While violent crimes fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2010, other large cities experienced larger violent crime declines without relying on stop and frisk abuses: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, 49 percent in Dallas, and 37 percent in Baltimore.
Stop-and-Frisk abuses corrode trust between the police and communities, which makes everyone less safe. Don't believe us? Then listen to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly in 2000: "[A] large reservoir of good will was under construction when I left the Police Department in 1994. It was called community policing. But it was quickly abandoned for tough-sounding rhetoric and dubious stop-and-frisk tactics that sowed new seeds of community mistrust."

Chicago has large swaths of vacant and abandoned housing and other property, less density (less cops per square mile), much of the city is derelict.  NYC doesn't have this problem because of their wealth.


cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: And ignoring the moral/legal/const ...


Bloomberg actually said not enough black and latinos were frisked and too many whites.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Mayor-Bloomberg-Stop-Frisk-Blac ks -Latinos-Not-Enough-Whites-Too-Much-213534521.html
 
2013-08-24 07:46:56 PM  
So, new leadership in the police union, or the police union shakes down the politicians to make this annoying judge go away?

/wonder why she hasn't had an "accident"?
 
2013-08-24 07:52:56 PM  
Why wasn't our civil rights leader AG Holder all over this? Oh that's right he is dealing with states who dare try to protect the integrity of their voting systems by imposing the onerous requirement of having a photo ID to vote undermining the ability of undocumented aliens democrats to vote/

Stop and Frisk hardly is worth the attention of an administration that uses the IRS a weapon against political opponents.
 
2013-08-24 08:00:12 PM  
Police performed 'Stop-and-Frisk in high-crime areas. These high-crime areas are populated mostly by Blacks and Hispanics, of course more blacks and Hispanics would be stopped...few white people live there. How come crime is not any where near has high in 'white' areas?
 
2013-08-24 08:02:39 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure I see a clear line between increased regulations on stop and frisk and no longer being able to investigate crimes.  If someone says they were raped by a black male that shouldn't have meant that you could just go out and start arresting any black male you saw before this ruling, but I don't see how it limits who you can question.

I do, however, think that stop and frisk is a good idea, but having some oversight over the program isn't a bad thing.  From previous reports while it shows that more black and Hispanic people were stopped under the program, the racial breakdown of the stops seemed to line up pretty well with the racial breakdown of suspects and arrestees for violent crime in NYC, and based on that it doesn't seem to unfairly discriminate.


8/10.
 
2013-08-24 08:07:04 PM  

ferretman: Police performed 'Stop-and-Frisk in high-crime areas. These high-crime areas are populated mostly by Blacks and Hispanics, of course more blacks and Hispanics would be stopped...few white people live there. How come crime is not any where near has high in 'white' areas?


Police perform stop-and-frisk everywhere, and regardless of the racial make-up of the neighborhood, blacks and hispanics were disproportionately targeted, despite their being less likely to be found in possession of contraband than whites.  And only a tiny fraction of stop-and-frisks involved the police stopping someone who fit the description of a suspect for an actual crime that had taken place.
 
2013-08-24 08:14:14 PM  

mexican bathtub cheese: Let citizens do whatever they want and crime will disappear.

Funny how that works.


When there is an affluent society, lots of work available, everyone has disposable cash, and there is adherence to moral-social responsibilities to their fellow citizens as well as for themselves, there is considerably LESS crime. It will never disappear.
 
2013-08-24 08:21:10 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure I see a clear line between increased regulations on stop and frisk and no longer being able to investigate crimes.  If someone says they were raped by a black male that shouldn't have meant that you could just go out and start arresting any black male you saw before this ruling, but I don't see how it limits who you can question.

I do, however, think that stop and frisk is a good idea, but having some oversight over the program isn't a bad thing.  From previous reports while it shows that more black and Hispanic people were stopped under the program, the racial breakdown of the stops seemed to line up pretty well with the racial breakdown of suspects and arrestees for violent crime in NYC, and based on that it doesn't seem to unfairly discriminate.




"If someone gets raped and says it was a black male, I'm going to be handicapped to stop someone because I could get sued for racial profiling. So now I'm just going to take reports," the cop said."

Are they going to sniff their dicks or something?

No wonder I'm not a hero.

/Veteran
 
2013-08-24 08:23:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: NewportBarGuy: We can have zero crime if we just let the police search all of us anytime they want. I'm pretty sure that goes against everything we're supposed to stand for as a country.

Police aren't trained to think like that. They're trained to think of ways to reduce crime by any means. It's up to the legislature to rein them in this way. I'm glad stop-and-frisk is over.


Bloomberg can't can't a break.

Maybe he will be able to get a ban on e-cigs to stick so that we can be free of the terror of water vapor. I'm so sick of being terrorized.
 
2013-08-24 08:28:49 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure I see a clear line between increased regulations on stop and frisk and no longer being able to investigate crimes.  If someone says they were raped by a black male that shouldn't have meant that you could just go out and start arresting any black male you saw before this ruling, but I don't see how it limits who you can question.

I do, however, think that stop and frisk is a good idea, but having some oversight over the program isn't a bad thing.  From previous reports while it shows that more black and Hispanic people were stopped under the program, the racial breakdown of the stops seemed to line up pretty well with the racial breakdown of suspects and arrestees for violent crime in NYC, and based on that it doesn't seem to unfairly discriminate.



I stopped reading right there.  How can the 4th amendment be conditional?  Because technology and stuff has changed the interpretation?  I don't buy it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Hapiness."

How the hell does stop and frisk mesh with that sentence?
 
2013-08-24 08:30:10 PM  

gaslight: Translation: police told to obey the law.


This.

And it's not a repeat from 1972. Go figure.
 
2013-08-24 08:30:54 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: cameroncrazy1984: NewportBarGuy: We can have zero crime if we just let the police search all of us anytime they want. I'm pretty sure that goes against everything we're supposed to stand for as a country.

Police aren't trained to think like that. They're trained to think of ways to reduce crime by any means. It's up to the legislature to rein them in this way. I'm glad stop-and-frisk is over.

Bloomberg can't can't a break.

Maybe he will be able to get a ban on e-cigs to stick so that we can be free of the terror of water vapor. I'm so sick of being terrorized.


At my old job, I had a guy smoking an e-cig right next to me for about twenty minutes before I noticed. I really don't get the hate for those. He got a bit flustered and was wondering if I minded.  I told him I only noticed because I saw it sticking out of his mouth. We went back to work and never heard another complaint from anyone in an overcrowded, small office.
 
2013-08-24 08:32:40 PM  

hasty ambush: Stop and Frisk hardly is worth the attention of an administration that uses the IRS a weapon against political opponents


I dont think they had stop and frisk when nixon was in the white house.
 
2013-08-24 08:32:57 PM  
Insubordinate, petulant, whining pissbags.  The whole "we risk our lives every day" schtick belies the fact that sanitation workers and fishermen have a higher on-the-job death rate. Violent crime is down across the country, whether or not a jurisdiction has Constitution-violating policies in place.  This is just the power-mad statists declaring that they won't do their job.
 
2013-08-24 08:34:40 PM  
They tried a similar tactic to stop and frisk here in Baltimore under a certain Commissioner. What happened was a spectacular backfire. Said Commissioner was a former New York cop. So he tried a New York tactic in B-more with a twist. Ended up alienating the community something fierce.

The whole plan was simple. Arrest people, who happened to be mostly black, for loitering and other minor crimes. Even if they were doing nothing actually wrong. Just bag them and let the DA sort 'em out.

So when people who were grabbed off the street and arrested for "loitering" after walking out of corner stores. Juries began to not trust arresting officers statements in other cases that involved actual violent crime. Plus the D.A. was dropping the false arrest cases left and right due to lack of evidence.

People were being held in inhumane jail conditions for weeks at a time. Folks who had never seen the inside of a jail cell suddenly were relating stories of how they were falsely arrested. Had no way to post bail due to being broke. And losing their jobs due to the false arrest situation. Community relations suffered greatly.

The tactic was dropped because it wasted time and money and surprisingly did nothing to change violent crime. I mean when you arrest people at random. Surely you must grab someone who stuck up someone's grandpa eventually right? So a few days or weeks in the chiller aught to settle their hash and teach them a valuable lesson or something.

The people who deserved jail time getting acquitted by juries due to a lack of trust in the police was just cruel icing on the cake.

You know in reality, they would not try this crap in wealthy areas. Their reasoning is they have to focus on more crime ridden areas. But crimes happen everywhere! That is the point of laws, to create or correct a problem and or punish criminals! Whichever gets the politicians elected!

Banksters are more dangerous to the planet than a local hood. If that mess from a few years ago and the resulting financial situations we are still dealing with now are anything to go by.

If this policy was being applied to all neighborhoods, as in actually stopping and frisking people who look wealthy and not just poor people. No one would give a damn in the poor communities aside from the usual people. Because as they would see, everyone was being treated equally. But when you use vague reasons to stop only certain people you can see why trust is undermined.

Of course the wealthy would biatch and the policy would be dropped quickly. But me and a friend wondered just how much coke would be found on a wall street banker after a rough week. We laughed about it but frankly even I think no one should be stopped just for the sake of stopping people.
 
2013-08-24 08:45:06 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure I see a clear line between increased regulations on stop and frisk and no longer being able to investigate crimes.  If someone says they were raped by a black male that shouldn't have meant that you could just go out and start arresting any black male you saw before this ruling, but I don't see how it limits who you can question.

I do, however, think that stop and frisk is a good idea, but having some oversight over the program isn't a bad thing.  From previous reports while it shows that more black and Hispanic people were stopped under the program, the racial breakdown of the stops seemed to line up pretty well with the racial breakdown of suspects and arrestees for violent crime in NYC, and based on that it doesn't seem to unfairly discriminate.


Stop and frisk is and was a horrible idea. Regardless of the "good" it does. I dont want to live or visit any place where I am assumed guilty because I look a certain way. And can be harassed legally because of it.

liberty trumps safety
 
2013-08-24 08:54:20 PM  

mongbiohazard: In other words the police union is saying: "Oh, you want us to be accountable for our actions? Nice city you got here... Be a real shame if something were to happen to it... Oh yeah, real shame... /cracks knuckles"


That's as much a terroristic threat than those for which people have been convicted and sent to prison. Sounds like a good reason to decertify the union.
 
2013-08-24 09:10:46 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: unamused:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

The courts have ruled in the past that the right to privacy isn't as great in a public place as it is on your own private property.  They've also ruled that warrantless searches are valid if there's reasonable suspicion.

Seeing a bunch of young guys hanging out on a street corner at night in an area known for drug trade, a middle aged guy driving around alone in circles around the block in an area known for prostitution, or seeing a guy walking down the street constantly adjusting his pants like he's carrying a gun would all seem to be reasonable reasons to search someone.

Fark It:


And ignoring the moral/legal/constitutional angle, stop-and-frisk and racial profiling are ineffective.  So there's that.

New York and Chicago are both large multiracial multiethnic cities with huge wealth inequality, a history of gang violence, and strong firearm control legislation.  NYC has a crime rate much lower than Chicago, why is that?


And yet none of those people has committed a crime, or is in the *process* of committing a crime(holding a gun on someone, winding up with a rock to throw at a window).

Just get off yer ass and pass a law against "walking while dark skinned" and stop screwing around.

Get some balls, will ya?
 
2013-08-24 09:19:26 PM  

Fark It: ferretman: Police performed 'Stop-and-Frisk in high-crime areas. These high-crime areas are populated mostly by Blacks and Hispanics, of course more blacks and Hispanics would be stopped...few white people live there. How come crime is not any where near has high in 'white' areas?

Police perform stop-and-frisk everywhere, and regardless of the racial make-up of the neighborhood, blacks and hispanics were disproportionately targeted, despite their being less likely to be found in possession of contraband than whites.  And only a tiny fraction of stop-and-frisks involved the police stopping someone who fit the description of a suspect for an actual crime that had taken place.


In New York City it took place mostly in high crime neighborhoods. Do the research!
 
2013-08-24 09:21:06 PM  

ferretman: Fark It: ferretman: Police performed 'Stop-and-Frisk in high-crime areas. These high-crime areas are populated mostly by Blacks and Hispanics, of course more blacks and Hispanics would be stopped...few white people live there. How come crime is not any where near has high in 'white' areas?

Police perform stop-and-frisk everywhere, and regardless of the racial make-up of the neighborhood, blacks and hispanics were disproportionately targeted, despite their being less likely to be found in possession of contraband than whites.  And only a tiny fraction of stop-and-frisks involved the police stopping someone who fit the description of a suspect for an actual crime that had taken place.

In New York City it took place mostly in high crime neighborhoods. Do the research!


That doesn't mean it was justified.  You're chiding me for research?  Read the thread.
 
2013-08-24 09:21:31 PM  

Latinwolf: Giltric: Well there is profiling as in stopping and frisking 90% of the black and hispanic males walking through a 90% white neigjborhhod....and profiling as in stopping and frisking 90% of the black and hispanic males walking through a 90% black and hispanic neighborhood.

Only one should actually be considered profiling. YMMV....

Yet if cops stopped and frisked 90% of white males walking through 90% black and hispanic neighborhoods you'd have a problem with it.


Facepalm.jpg
 
2013-08-24 09:42:02 PM  
What is the big deal? Stop and Frisk have been going on in black areas of major cities since like forever.
/I was frisked right after I brought a gallon on milk(even had to take my shoes off) when I was 15
 
2013-08-24 09:56:37 PM  
I think liberals deserve their crime ridden cesspools and I applaud any law that makes sure criminals are armed and everyone else isn't, makes it easier to point to the city later as a statistic.
 
2013-08-24 10:03:21 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2013-08-24 10:20:45 PM  
The irony is that the police can cause a spike in crime all by themselves.

All they have to do is report the crimes that actually happen.
 
2013-08-24 10:40:10 PM  
m9.i.pbase.com
 
2013-08-24 11:05:23 PM  
You need a tangible reason to stop someone and search them.   "Furtive movements" and the like are just green lights for cops to stop anyone they want.  If they want to use unverifiable excuses like that they should be FORCED to wear cameras and audio gear and it should SHOW the behavior that made them so suspicious they had to stop and frisk a private citizen in order to allow a judge and jury to view the "evidence" in question and not just take the officer's word on it.

The very low rate of success on stop and frisk shows that way too many cops are using their power in a way which intrudes on private citizens who have literally done nothing but arouse the suspicion of a policeman.  This to me seems proof that police in general are not good judges of what should actually make them suspicious enough to initiate a stop and frisk.  They need to be controlled because it is clear they are unable to control themselves.

Protecting the rights of the free should always come before the convenience of law enforcement.  Anyone who says otherwise is, in my mind, a coward.  I know there is always a cost/benefit analysis in these situations, but if 80-90% of the stop and frisks you are doing come up with nothing then you are definitely using the wrong criteria to initiate those stops in the first place and violating the rights of many(mostly minority) people.

If the reason they can't show, stop and frisk must go.

RIP Johnnie Cochran
 
2013-08-24 11:07:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Man, there was a whole lot of fearmongering in there. Apparently, if the cops aren't allowed to do whatever they want, crime will "skyrocket"


Just like if you won't put up with the cancer nudie scan or the full body grope the terrorists will get ya!

I always opt for the full body grope.
 
2013-08-24 11:28:53 PM  
I'm honestly surprised this only had 82 comments when I clicked on it.
 
2013-08-24 11:46:32 PM  

CheapEngineer: TuteTibiImperes: unamused:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

The courts have ruled in the past that the right to privacy isn't as great in a public place as it is on your own private property.  They've also ruled that warrantless searches are valid if there's reasonable suspicion.

Seeing a bunch of young guys hanging out on a street corner at night in an area known for drug trade, a middle aged guy driving around alone in circles around the block in an area known for prostitution, or seeing a guy walking down the street constantly adjusting his pants like he's carrying a gun would all seem to be reasonable reasons to search someone.

Fark It:


And ignoring the moral/legal/constitutional angle, stop-and-frisk and racial profiling are ineffective.  So there's that.

New York and Chicago are both large multiracial multiethnic cities with huge wealth inequality, a history of gang violence, and strong firearm control legislation.  NYC has a crime rate much lower than Chicago, why is that?

And yet none of those people has committed a crime, or is in the *process* of committing a crime(holding a gun on someone, winding up with a rock to throw at a window).

Just get off yer ass and pass a law against "walking while dark skinned" and stop screwing around.

Get some balls, will ya?


See, it should have nothing to do with race.  Any officer who targets someone solely on race should certainly be reprimanded.  I don't really have an issue with the police stopping people for engaging in suspicious activity in public though.  I'm all for privacy rights when it comes to your home and communications.  I believe the police should not be able to enter your home unless they're invited, have a warrant, or hear someone in peril inside and have to intervene.  I'm against warrantless wiretapping and the NSA e-mail snooping.  There's a clear difference between being on your own property and being in public however.

In public you do not have a right to privacy. If the police see a group of people apparently up to no good they should have the right to question them about what they're doing, and if there's enough evidence, to frisk them.  If there's nothing illegal found obviously they should not be arrested, and everyone can go along their merry way, no harm no foul.

I don't believe there's a racial motivation behind the law, though it may have ended up with one in practice in some cases.  I seriously doubt Bloomberg is a racist, and though he does go too far sometimes with nanny-state BS, like the soda law, giving the police the right to check to make sure suspiciously acting people weren't carrying weapons or engaged in illicit activity on the streets seemed like a decent enough idea.

Now, if it truly wasn't very effective and most of the people stopped weren't doing anything wrong, it clearly calls for some fine tuning.  If I were walking down the street and the police stopped and frisked me I might be annoyed for a bit, but as long as it stopped at that, and there's no reason why it wouldn't, I'd be over it pretty quick.
 
2013-08-25 12:03:06 AM  

ferretman: Police performed 'Stop-and-Frisk in high-crime areas. These high-crime areas are populated mostly by Blacks and Hispanics, of course more blacks and Hispanics would be stopped...few white people live there. How come crime is not any where near has high in 'white' areas?


"Cuz they got gunz.
 
2013-08-25 12:17:10 AM  
...

See, it should have nothing to do with race.  Any officer who targets someone solely on race should certainly be reprimanded.  I don't really have an issue with the police stopping people for engaging in suspicious activity in public though.  I'm all for privacy rights when it comes to your home and communications.  I believe the police should not be able to enter your home unless they're invited, have a warrant, or hear someone in peril inside and have to intervene.  I'm against warrantless wiretapping and the NSA e-mail snooping.  There's a clear difference between being on your own property and being in public however.

Engaging in suspicious activity is a very broad term open to a great deal of interpretation.  I don't think your interpretation is the same as mine, or that either of ours is the same as a NYC police officer's.  It is incredibly easy to say you saw a suspicious action and it's nearly impossible to prove that you didn't later unless you were somehow magically prepared to be stopped randomly for nothing.  We know this is happening because 80-90% of the stops come up with nothing, meaning that they started with nothing, nothing but perhaps the whims or predispositions of the policemen themselves.  There is no moral high ground on your side, come on over.
 
2013-08-25 12:21:31 AM  

UseLessHuman: ...

See, it should have nothing to do with race.  Any officer who targets someone solely on race should certainly be reprimanded.  I don't really have an issue with the police stopping people for engaging in suspicious activity in public though.  I'm all for privacy rights when it comes to your home and communications.  I believe the police should not be able to enter your home unless they're invited, have a warrant, or hear someone in peril inside and have to intervene.  I'm against warrantless wiretapping and the NSA e-mail snooping.  There's a clear difference between being on your own property and being in public however.

Engaging in suspicious activity is a very broad term open to a great deal of interpretation.  I don't think your interpretation is the same as mine, or that either of ours is the same as a NYC police officer's.  It is incredibly easy to say you saw a suspicious action and it's nearly impossible to prove that you didn't later unless you were somehow magically prepared to be stopped randomly for nothing.  We know this is happening because 80-90% of the stops come up with nothing, meaning that they started with nothing, nothing but perhaps the whims or predispositions of the policemen themselves.  There is no moral high ground on your side, come on over.


Ahhhh, we have reached the crux of the issue.  Well stated.
 
2013-08-25 12:35:35 AM  

UseLessHuman: ...

See, it should have nothing to do with race.  Any officer who targets someone solely on race should certainly be reprimanded.  I don't really have an issue with the police stopping people for engaging in suspicious activity in public though.  I'm all for privacy rights when it comes to your home and communications.  I believe the police should not be able to enter your home unless they're invited, have a warrant, or hear someone in peril inside and have to intervene.  I'm against warrantless wiretapping and the NSA e-mail snooping.  There's a clear difference between being on your own property and being in public however.

Engaging in suspicious activity is a very broad term open to a great deal of interpretation.  I don't think your interpretation is the same as mine, or that either of ours is the same as a NYC police officer's.  It is incredibly easy to say you saw a suspicious action and it's nearly impossible to prove that you didn't later unless you were somehow magically prepared to be stopped randomly for nothing.  We know this is happening because 80-90% of the stops come up with nothing, meaning that they started with nothing, nothing but perhaps the whims or predispositions of the policemen themselves.  There is no moral high ground on your side, come on over.


Yeah, like I said, if 80-90% of the people stopped weren't doing anything wrong, obviously the system had issues, and is need of reform.

I do like the idea of the police being able to stop someone who they think is illegally armed before they can kill someone though.

I'm torn on this.
 
2013-08-25 12:41:24 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I do like the idea of the police being able to stop someone who they think is illegally armed before they can kill someone though.


And how would the police know that the person was "illegally armed" without any proof?  If there was proof, then there would be probable cause.  If not, then why are the police stopping the person?
 
2013-08-25 12:50:41 AM  

dark brew: TuteTibiImperes: I do like the idea of the police being able to stop someone who they think is illegally armed before they can kill someone though.

And how would the police know that the person was "illegally armed" without any proof?  If there was proof, then there would be probable cause.  If not, then why are the police stopping the person?


I guess that's the million dollar question.  If they stop people who look thuggish due to dress or demeanor they're likely going to be targeting based on race, even if subconsciously, which is wrong.

If they just stop a bunch of random people they're going to end up inconveniencing a lot of innocent people, which also seems wrong.

Maybe there isn't a good way to go about it by just passing by.
 
2013-08-25 12:53:37 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure I see a clear line between increased regulations on stop and frisk and no longer being able to investigate crimes.  If someone says they were raped by a black male that shouldn't have meant that you could just go out and start arresting any black male you saw before this ruling, but I don't see how it limits who you can question.

I do, however, think that stop and frisk is a good idea, but having some oversight over the program isn't a bad thing.  From previous reports while it shows that more black and Hispanic people were stopped under the program, the racial breakdown of the stops seemed to line up pretty well with the racial breakdown of suspects and arrestees for violent crime in NYC, and based on that it doesn't seem to unfairly discriminate.


The problem isn't discrimination (I see no reason to think it's discriminatory) but rather the major violation of the 4th.
 
2013-08-25 04:19:21 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-08-25 04:49:15 AM  

cman: TuteTibiImperes:
New York and Chicago are both large multiracial multiethnic cities with huge wealth inequality, a history of gang violence, and strong firearm control legislation.  NYC has a crime rate much lower than Chicago, why is that?

Because there is nearly a battalion of policemen on every corner


The seventh largest army in the World, according to da mayor.
 
2013-08-25 04:58:13 AM  
The stated purpose is to stop criminals with weapons.  The truth is, the vast majority of the violations are for pot.  Not only that, but they don't bust people just for possession.  They bust them for public display of drugs (which has a much higher penalty), which they themselves caused by ordering them to empty their pockets.

I would have no problem if the stops were for actual suspicious behavior like attempting to open a locked door, threatening someone, or matching the description of a suspect, verified by a video recorder that the officer is required to have on him at all times.
 
2013-08-25 06:03:23 AM  
Pobrecito. Living under the law, instead of above it is a biatch, ain't it?


i1004.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-25 08:13:27 AM  

snocone: mexican bathtub cheese: Let citizens do whatever they want and crime will disappear.

Funny how that works.

When every citizen becomes a nail, it is time to get rid of the hammers.


That right there is beautiful. I'm stealing the f*ck out of that turn of phrase.
 
2013-08-25 08:58:58 AM  
While ignoring stop an frisk in NYC the Obama civil rights Justice department goes after the evil that are school vouchers in Louisiana
 
2013-08-25 09:28:21 AM  
I hadn't heard about the School Vouchers thing. Not surprised, though. Can't have kids actually being educated, they might realize that the government is full of crooks and snoops (Hi NSA!)
 
2013-08-25 10:59:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not sure I see a clear line between increased regulations on stop and frisk and no longer being able to investigate crimes.  If someone says they were raped by a black male that shouldn't have meant that you could just go out and start arresting any black male you saw before this ruling, but I don't see how it limits who you can question.

I do, however, think that stop and frisk is a good idea, but having some oversight over the program isn't a bad thing.  From previous reports while it shows that more black and Hispanic people were stopped under the program, the racial breakdown of the stops seemed to line up pretty well with the racial breakdown of suspects and arrestees for violent crime in NYC, and based on that it doesn't seem to unfairly discriminate.


How odd that the racial breakdown of people suspected and harassed is similar to the racial breakdown of those arrested? There couldn't be any cause and effect there. Surely there aren't any white law breakers getting a free pass, or less scrutiny.
 
2013-08-25 12:52:23 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: In public you do not have a right to privacy. If the police see a group of people apparently up to no good they should have the right to question them about what they're doing, and if there's enough evidence, to frisk them.


I look forward to seeing "up to no good" codified into law. Otherwise, I expect to see the phrase "F@ck You, Copper" legalized and taught to our students in school (at the end of the Pledge, I suggest).

If there's nothing illegal found obviously they should not be arrested, and everyone can go along their merry way, no harm no foul.

I find it sad that you think that way. I really hope this is a troll.

\sadly, I seem to live in a place where people are okay with that
\\until it happens to them
 
2013-08-25 09:57:04 PM  

CheapEngineer: TuteTibiImperes: In public you do not have a right to privacy. If the police see a group of people apparently up to no good they should have the right to question them about what they're doing, and if there's enough evidence, to frisk them.

I look forward to seeing "up to no good" codified into law. Otherwise, I expect to see the phrase "F@ck You, Copper" legalized and taught to our students in school (at the end of the Pledge, I suggest).

If there's nothing illegal found obviously they should not be arrested, and everyone can go along their merry way, no harm no foul.

I find it sad that you think that way. I really hope this is a troll.

\sadly, I seem to live in a place where people are okay with that
\\until it happens to them


I'll admit being one of those on the fence; that is, until it happened to me in San Marcos, CA.  I was hiking/walking through an off the main drag neighborhood when some of the local hooligans thought it would be funny to call in to report a "prowler".  Four cop cars showed up, proceeded to cuff me in a ditch and rummage through my vehicle (which I had just returned to) after I specifically told them no.  90 minutes of that went on before they realized "hey, we done been pranked" with the hooligans laughing their asses off 200 yards away.  No apology, but I did get a half-hearted "just doing our job, sir."

No probable cause, no basic respect for anything that looked like the 4th amendment.  Just thuggery.  Guess what city I refuse to do any business in or even stop to hit the head forever more?

/white.  Most definitely not on the fence any longer.
 
Displayed 49 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report