Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    The other day, a federal judge ruled New York's "stop and frisk" program unconstitutional. Thoughts?  I tend to feel strongly about probable cause and don't think the police should be able to stop and frisk at will.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    The worrisome thing is that anyone would think that was a reasonable thing in the first place.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    New York City went from a dangerous hellhole to a place where its mayor has the luxury to waste time on ridiculous soda schemes. That is a luxury provided by NYPD tactics that are politically incorrect, but that work.

    The NYPD hasn’t just focused on chasing down criminals, but on preventing crimes before they happen. And doing that requires understanding the sources of crime and taking action.

    national review:

    "There is little or no evidence that the New York Police Department has been anything other than professional and well intentioned in its execution of stop-and-frisk, and there is ample evidence that this and other measures have made a real impact on crime in the city. We have become accustomed to choking a little on the words “Mayor Bloomberg is right,” but right is what he is on this question.

    Keeping a leash on crime in New York is a difficult and thankless job, and doing it well requires a relentless commitment to clear-headed policy over popular platitudes. The results of second- and third-rate city governance can be seen from Philadelphia to Detroit to Los Angeles, if parochial New Yorkers had the inclination to understand life west of the Hudson.

    The future of the nation’s largest city simply cannot be entrusted to those who value identity politics over law enforcement. Unhappily, the menu of credible candidates to continue the necessary work begun by Mayor Giuliani presents slim pickings for the city. If the last testament of Bloombergism is a Central Park that you can’t smoke in but may walk through without fearing for your life, that is not the worst possible outcome.

    Within living memory, New York City had more than 2,200 murders a year, and vast stretches of the city were unlivable. If the mayor’s critics have their way, sugar and salt are going to be the least of New York’s worries. "


     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    That is a luxury provided by NYPD tactics that are politically incorrect, but that work.

    First, let me get this out of the way:

    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT "POLITICALLY CORRECT."

    Okay, thanks, I feel better now.

    The previous mayor of New York was able to make the city much safer without having to resort to unconstitutional practices. Perhaps the current mayor should revisit the successful procedures and policies that he inherited.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    This seems an awful lot like a policy that could be effective and respectful...

    ...if it was performed by robots and not humans.

     

    The potential for abuse and profiling while on the job make it instantly suspect.  

    Could this policy realistically be enforced in other, smaller cities?  What about those with conceal carry laws?  (Guns are the primary target of SQF)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

     In 2012, there were fewer murders than there were during any of the previous 50 years the NYPD has been tracking the crime. This year alone, murders have plummeted by 19 percent from 2011. Shootings are also the lowest they have been since the police began following that statistic two decades ago.

    As Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly recently noted, New York’s homicide total (419) would be 1,224 with Chicago’s murder rate and 3,635 with Detroit’s. Neither Chicago nor Detroit utilizes stop, question and frisk, and there is no doubt that the policy is one of the premier reasons that New York is the safest large city in America.

    If a mayor of New York can prevent the city’s backsliding into its pre-Giuliani state of criminal chaos, he can call himself successful. After crime prevention, everything else is a distant second for any big-city mayor, as Rahm Emanuel is learning the hard way in Chicago. There are many factors supporting New York’s success in tamping down crime, and stop-and-frisk is one of them.

    The program is controversial because most of those who are stopped and frisked are black or Latino. That is less surprising than it may sound: Most New Yorkers are black or Latino. Critics of stop-and-frisk allege that the program is racially biased because blacks and Latinos are stopped and frisked at rates disproportionate to their share of the population. In fact, they constitute 87 percent of the stop-and-frisk targets. It is not surprising that blacks and Latinos are stopped and frisked at rates higher than would be expected if the program were being randomly administered across the entire population — because the program is not random. It is applied most robustly in high-crime areas, which tend to be disproportionately black and Latino. It is applied in response to specific information, such as witness testimony. Noting that, Mayor Bloomberg argued that the stop-and-frisk program might be stopping blacks and Latinos too infrequently: More than 90 percent of those being sought in New York City murder cases are described as being black or Latino.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    That is a luxury provided by NYPD tactics that are politically incorrect, but that work.

     

    First, let me get this out of the way:

    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT "POLITICALLY CORRECT."

    Okay, thanks, I feel better now.

    The previous mayor of New York was able to make the city much safer without having to resort to unconstitutional practices. Perhaps the current mayor should revisit the successful procedures and policies that he inherited.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.




    Guiliani was also attacked by the ACLU and liberals for supposed unconstitutional police practices, but his success was undeniable. Stop and frisk is just another police method, like Guiliana's crackdown on car "windshield washers" and "turnstyle jumpers" which of course also was attacked as racist.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     In 2012, there were fewer murders than there were during any of the previous 50 years the NYPD has been tracking the crime. This year alone, murders have plummeted by 19 percent from 2011. Shootings are also the lowest they have been since the police began following that statistic two decades ago.

    As Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly recently noted, New York’s homicide total (419) would be 1,224 with Chicago’s murder rate and 3,635 with Detroit’s. Neither Chicago nor Detroit utilizes stop, question and frisk, and there is no doubt that the policy is one of the premier reasons that New York is the safest large city in America.

    If a mayor of New York can prevent the city’s backsliding into its pre-Giuliani state of criminal chaos, he can call himself successful. After crime prevention, everything else is a distant second for any big-city mayor, as Rahm Emanuel is learning the hard way in Chicago. There are many factors supporting New York’s success in tamping down crime, and stop-and-frisk is one of them.

    The program is controversial because most of those who are stopped and frisked are black or Latino. That is less surprising than it may sound: Most New Yorkers are black or Latino. Critics of stop-and-frisk allege that the program is racially biased because blacks and Latinos are stopped and frisked at rates disproportionate to their share of the population. In fact, they constitute 87 percent of the stop-and-frisk targets. It is not surprising that blacks and Latinos are stopped and frisked at rates higher than would be expected if the program were being randomly administered across the entire population — because the program is not random. It is applied most robustly in high-crime areas, which tend to be disproportionately black and Latino. It is applied in response to specific information, such as witness testimony. Noting that, Mayor Bloomberg argued that the stop-and-frisk program might be stopping blacks and Latinos too infrequently: More than 90 percent of those being sought in New York City murder cases are described as being black or Latino.




    Crime rates in the old Soviet Union were pretty low as well.

    And i'm confused.  Is your position that the Constitution doesn't matter or is it that certain groups of people don't deserve its protection?

    The question that was posed in this case was whether or not the 4th and 14th Amendments were violated, not whether crime rates dropped.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Guiliani was also attacked by the ACLU and liberals for supposed unconstitutional police practices, but his success was undeniable.



    So if something is "successful," that means it is constitutional in CLC-land? 

     



    In radical zealot ACLU-land,  any and all successful police tactics are unconstitutional,  not to mention successful prevention of mass terrorist attacks. 

    The ACLU approach of squelching law enforcement leads to the mass murder battlefields of Chicago and Detroit...

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    Stop and frisk is just another police method, like Guiliana's crackdown on car "windshield washers" and "turnstyle jumpers" which of course also was attacked as racist.

    One of these things is not like the other.


    On the other hand, I'm sure that the founders could not have envisioned the type of crimes that are being committed in the New York of 2013 so given our living constitution perhaps we might just temporarily ignore the 4th amendment in the case of people who look like they're going to commit a crime.

     

    (note to anyone who doesn't know me, that last bit was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek)

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    if you think that, you honestly do not belong in this country.

    Stop it CLC, you're forcing me to agree with WDYWN.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    If you think that, you honestly do not belong in this country.




    I'm still trying to figure out which country he belongs in, or which country he would like US laws and taxes to be modeled after.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    crime hasn't gone down, it's just been transferred. 90% of the people being stopped and frisked are completely innocent. they are being harrassed and having their constitutional rights trampled on, therefore, they are victims of a criminal police state.

    Yeah. You're not helping.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    If you're a hammer everything looks like just like a nail to you...

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    The other day, a federal judge ruled New York's "stop and frisk" program unconstitutional. Thoughts?  I tend to feel strongly about probable cause and don't think the police should be able to stop and frisk at will.

     




    Technical note: Under a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, the police need something less than probable cause to stop you. It's called "reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts," in other words, the cop needs to be able to say something about you that gave him reasonable suspicion to believe you had committed, were committing, or are about to commit a crime ifyou are challenging the stop. 

     

    That's a stop. The frisk is if the have the same level of suspicion that you have a weapon or otherwise pose a danger t othe cop.

    In reality, you only find yourself in such a position if the cop detected an illegality and you are now trying to suppress whatever evidence he found. Also in reality, this means you are a criminal. This means that 99.999% judge will believe whatever the cop says. On top of this, the judge won't have what you the defendant have to say because you aren't going to testify at a suppression hearing. The reason for that is that the prosecutor can question you about the crime charged, and the risk is that you will sink your own case before trial by saying something at the suppression hearing.

    All that adds up to mean that the cop can illegally stop and frisk whoever the cop pleases - provided the cop is not being filmed. If the person has nothing, the cop lets them go. Could they sue? If the had the cash for the fees and wanted to do it on principle. In reality, they don't.

    And of course, if the cop finds something, well the cop's word is going to stand up unless you have undeniable documantary proof that the cop lied.

    (tidbit: A colleague once challenged a stop. At the suppression hearing, the cop kept insisting his suspicion was based on the fact that the defendant made "furtive movements." Eventually, my colleague asked: "officer, using words, define 'furtive movement'". The cop  had no idea what it meant. He just knew his colleagues used it because it got judges to uphold searches.

    Evidence suppressed.     

    "Furtive movement" = quick, nervous movements. Think of a mouse scavenging.)

     

     

     

     

    Getting back to the program: This is the central problem with it. It made cops' existing illegal behavior a matter of policy.

     

    Of course, people rarely care about this. It's just criminals and druggies with their EBT cards getting their constitutional rights violated - middle aged white dude isn't getting stopped & frisked - so who cares...      

     

     




    Thanks for that info. This morning I was thinking that "probable cause" was probably not the right term..but wasn't sure what the proper term was..lol

    I guess this is my major concern. I work in an inner city and hear the stories all the time from clients who get pulled over ..or stopped for no reason.  It seems to me that this law made it easier for police to do this..or actually..the way you put it..legitimized the behavior.

    I think it's important for people to remember that we have constitutional rights in this country. A program that's considered a "success"...but is at the expense of our rights is no success..it is a step towards a police state.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ppannos. Show ppannos's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    If you're a hammer everything looks like just like a nail to you...

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.




    GOOOOAAALLLLLLLLLLL !!!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ppannos. Show ppannos's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned


    What IF a law abiding citizen was stopped and searched.

    Seems the police NEED to stop normal people just to mitigate charges of discrimination.

    Is there a citizens process to file a complaint?

    Is there a ratsazz chance that anything will happen?

    Point is we would all become subject to these.

    Reminds me of .. Papers.. may I see your papers?

     

    He's a blooming idiot

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Bloomberg's Stop and Frisk program overturned

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    The other day, a federal judge ruled New York's "stop and frisk" program unconstitutional. Thoughts?  I tend to feel strongly about probable cause and don't think the police should be able to stop and frisk at will.




    Great topic, miscricket:)........ I don't think Police Officers should ever have the right to stop and frisk with out probable cause. It violates the constitution, and in the case of NYC, it was used mainly for blacks and hispanics. Mayor Bloomberg reminds me of Putin sometimes.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share