Stop and Frisk

[Pepper]

 

I can assure you that any of the LEOs on here that are or have been in high gang areas can tell you exactlly who is in the gangs, more than likley where they rank in those gangs and which one of them is more than likley going to be packing when they see them on the street. The NYPD were not stopping granny on the way to church on Sunday morning, or tourists at the Statue of Liberty. They were in high crime areas stopping people that by reason of deducion and observation were likley canidates to be conducting violent crimes.

Every cop knows who their troubled people are, and I'm sure that the NYPD wasn't bothering granny. But, those thugs enjoy the same rights as granny, and while my prior knowledge about their criminal activities can enter into reasonable suspicion, my RS to stop them cannot be based upon that alone. Now, it's not hard to make it to RS, and with that, it's not hard for us to justify a legal pat down for weapons. But randomly stopping someone because they look like a thug, or a dirtbag with warrants? Not legal, not reasonable.

[harry1]

This is what bugs me more than anything in these discussions. Often, I am more concerned with people's constitutional rights than even they are. Then someone who doesn't have all the facts complain about how cops violate people's rights, it's just frustrating. A good cop will make mistakes, and will occasionally violate someone's rights. It happens. They don't want it to happen, no one does, but a good cop rides right on the edge. They go as far as they can, without taking one step too far. Sometimes the turn of a phrase can turn a consensual conversational encounter into a "stop", where the person feels like they're not free to leave, and the whole dynamic changes. Sometimes simply the number of officers, the positioning of cars, body language, all can go into the equation, and can turn a valid, consensual contact into an illegal search or detention. It's why even after learning all about this stuff, even lawyers need to see hundreds, if not thousands of practical applications of case law to know what is, and is not reasonable. Trying to pigeonhole every circumstance into black and white boxes is impossible.

 

Please don't take that he wrong way, I was making fun of her, she was off and then sent herself to jail

[Sgtar15]

Let me let u in on a secret, theChattanooga free times press is a commie liberal anti gun rag, and what makes it worse, they quote the Tennessean and it is even worse. Even after making the alligation in the story they admit that DC was above TN in the stats.

<snip>

 

We can also look at these stats for any of the states and narrow down where the problem areas are. I can tell you that in TN it is in areas of Memphis, Jackson, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville (high gang population areas),

 

 

 

WHAT?!?! Libs in the great state of Tenn????

 

Say it ain't so Joe? :ROFLLMAO:

Edited August 21, 2013 by Sgtar15

[Sgtar15]

This is what bugs me more than anything in these discussions. Often, I am more concerned with people's constitutional rights than even they are.

 

 

Actually, some of the people care a GREAT deal about THEIR rights, they just don't give a crap about OTHERS rights.

[harry1]

Let me let u in on a secret, theChattanooga free times press is a commie liberal anti gun rag, and what makes it worse, they quote the Tennessean and it is even worse. Even after making the alligation in the story they admit that DC was above TN in the stats.

 

Here are some actual stats from 2010 posted in 1/11.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

.

Those are the same numbers I posted twice. Yes DC has a higher murder rate, but TN leads the way in assults with a gun.

 

I realize that many people want to stop anyone that looks different, but the constitution says you can't do that, like Pepper was saying. I am sorry constitution applies to everyone equally

[redbarron06]

Every cop knows who their troubled people are, and I'm sure that the NYPD wasn't bothering granny. But, those thugs enjoy the same rights as granny, and while my prior knowledge about their criminal activities can enter into reasonable suspicion, my RS to stop them cannot be based upon that alone. Now, it's not hard to make it to RS, and with that, it's not hard for us to justify a legal pat down for weapons. But randomly stopping someone because they look like a thug, or a dirtbag with warrants? Not legal, not reasonable.

 

And I agree. Now thinking with a bit of logic I am sure that the NYPD was not just grabbing up every person that walked by for a pat down. Like you said even with police work you play the odds for success. If you make contact or what ever you call it and it goes in one direction but if it goes another you take the appropriate steps. As an officer do you want to pat down 100 people just so you might get the chance to do hours of paperwork on one of them? I think we can also all agree that the media will make this into something it is not, yes that is a wide brush but in this case it covers the subject. We also know that in most cases the mere presence of police will deter many of not most crimes. Anybody that has driven down the interstate knows that. Crest a hill and see a trooper in the median and all of a sudden it is 5 under the limit when a half mile ago everybody was doing at least 10 over. Then pass the car and in some cases there is not even a person it it but a ploy to make people slow down.

 

How many times as an officer do you look at a person and know in your heart and soul they are doing something wrong and make contact just to see if they will screw up so you can do your job? You look at indicators, the way they dress, the way they carry themselves and they way they interact with others. With the skills you are taught and sometimes a little bit of luck you get an arrest because they set off the alarms in your head that told you there were doing something wrong.

 

Now that also does not mean that some officers wont take advantage of the situation just as they will take advantage of just having a badge. We all know there are bad apples out there in every walk of life.

 

Just like any other job police play the odds, and they do that by profiling at many different levels, tell me I am wrong. Do you patrol the neighborhoods that have not had problems in 10 years as often or with as many officers as you do the ones that have break ins every other night? That is profiling.

 

Now to be clear I have not said that I support or oppose the practice NYPD uses but I simply stated the profiling works. It is one of those things in life that can't be changed.

[redbarron06]

Those are the same numbers I posted twice. Yes DC has a higher murder rate, but TN leads the way in assults with a gun.

I realize that many people want to stop anyone that looks different, but the constitution says you can't do that, like Pepper was saying. I am sorry constitution applies to everyone equally

You are only looking at one part of the stat though. Gun assaults. Factor in murders and gun robberies and it changes the story. If we look at numbers CA had more murders than any other state that year with over 1200 but again that is only part of the story. That year the murder rate with up 100% in Vermont it actually doubled, does that mean that Vermont is not safe to live in, well when you look at the entire story it went from 2 to 4. 4 people in the entire state murdered. I would say at that point it was a pretty safe place to live.

 

And I never said COTUS did not apply to everybody. My argument is again that profiling works. It is that easy. We have people on the police payroll that do nothing but make up profiles for criminals. That is profiling.

 

Some interesting stats that apply to profiling every day. Serial killers are generally white males. School shooters are generally white males. murders other than serial killings are generally black males. Since about 54% of all murders are committed by blacks, and blacks only make up about 20% of the population then if you are murdered odds are it was by a black person. Now none of this is racist it is statistics.

 

The reason the judge threw out the case against the NYPD was not because he saw it as a violation of COTUS but because he saw it as racist because it was effecting more black people than white people. Well if we look at the high crime areas all over the US, the most common denominator is that violent crimes are being committed in a disproportionate number by young black males. If blacks make up 1/5th of the population yet are committing half of the crimes where does that tell you that you need to go to lower crime rates. Where does that tell a police chief or mayor that he needs to focus his forces attention?

 

Bloomturd was sending his police force to the areas where the crime is the highest, those areas happened to be black and hispanic areas. The police aggressively patrolled those areas and because of that they had a much higher number of blacks and hispanics being contacted than whites. That is why it was thrown out, not based on 4A violations but on the perception of discrimination.

[Pepper]

Please don't take that he wrong way, I was making fun of her, she was off and then sent herself to jail

No, I understand what you're saying, I was replying to educate some of the others on the forum too. We're good.

 

 

 

Actually, some of the people care a GREAT deal about THEIR rights, they just don't give a crap about OTHERS rights.

People don't know a damned thing about their rights. They THINK they know something, but they don't. I applied for, obtained, and executed a search warrant for a guy's blood last night in a DUII case. When I delivered the warrant to him, he thought he could still resist the blood draw. He turned 5 shades of pasty white when I called for more cars to the hospital, and told him it was convenient we were in a hospital already, because if he was serious about it, things would get interesting.

 

And I agree. Now thinking with a bit of logic I am sure that the NYPD was not just grabbing up every person that walked by for a pat down. Like you said even with police work you play the odds for success. If you make contact or what ever you call it and it goes in one direction but if it goes another you take the appropriate steps. As an officer do you want to pat down 100 people just so you might get the chance to do hours of paperwork on one of them? I think we can also all agree that the media will make this into something it is not, yes that is a wide brush but in this case it covers the subject. We also know that in most cases the mere presence of police will deter many of not most crimes. Anybody that has driven down the interstate knows that. Crest a hill and see a trooper in the median and all of a sudden it is 5 under the limit when a half mile ago everybody was doing at least 10 over. Then pass the car and in some cases there is not even a person it it but a ploy to make people slow down.

 

How many times as an officer do you look at a person and know in your heart and soul they are doing something wrong and make contact just to see if they will screw up so you can do your job? You look at indicators, the way they dress, the way they carry themselves and they way they interact with others. With the skills you are taught and sometimes a little bit of luck you get an arrest because they set off the alarms in your head that told you there were doing something wrong.

 

Now that also does not mean that some officers wont take advantage of the situation just as they will take advantage of just having a badge. We all know there are bad apples out there in every walk of life.

 

Just like any other job police play the odds, and they do that by profiling at many different levels, tell me I am wrong. Do you patrol the neighborhoods that have not had problems in 10 years as often or with as many officers as you do the ones that have break ins every other night? That is profiling.

 

Now to be clear I have not said that I support or oppose the practice NYPD uses but I simply stated the profiling works. It is one of those things in life that can't be changed.

I know what you're saying. For example, I profile cars. A turdmobile gets stopped for an out tag light when Suzy Soccermom goes about her business with her tag light out, not getting a second glance from me. Why? People with warrants, suspended licenses, or drugs drive turdmobiles. Sometimes it's a normal hardworking guy, and he gets a pass to go on his way, with an admonishment to fix his car. The turds get inconvenienced as much as possible. They get ticketed until their licenses are suspended, and then we tow their car, and eventually find their dope during an inventory search. It's a long road to travel just to lock someone up, but in the end it's worth it. I know we can't "win" the "war on drugs", but we can make it as hard as possible for them to be in business. I do for my community what your security lights, cameras, and alarms do for your home. I protect it by making my city look uninviting to criminals, hoping they'll pick a harder target for their "business".

[redbarron06]

No, I understand what you're saying, I was replying to educate some of the others on the forum too. We're good.

 

 

People don't know a damned thing about their rights. They THINK they know something, but they don't. I applied for, obtained, and executed a search warrant for a guy's blood last night in a DUII case. When I delivered the warrant to him, he thought he could still resist the blood draw. He turned 5 shades of pasty white when I called for more cars to the hospital, and told him it was convenient we were in a hospital already, because if he was serious about it, things would get interesting.

 

 

I know what you're saying. For example, I profile cars. A turdmobile gets stopped for an out tag light when Suzy Soccermom goes about her business with her tag light out, not getting a second glance from me. Why? People with warrants, suspended licenses, or drugs drive turdmobiles. Sometimes it's a normal hardworking guy, and he gets a pass to go on his way, with an admonishment to fix his car. The turds get inconvenienced as much as possible. They get ticketed until their licenses are suspended, and then we tow their car, and eventually find their dope during an inventory search. It's a long road to travel just to lock someone up, but in the end it's worth it. I know we can't "win" the "war on drugs", but we can make it as hard as possible for them to be in business. I do for my community what your security lights, cameras, and alarms do for your home. I protect it by making my city look uninviting to criminals, hoping they'll pick a harder target for their "business".

That is all I am saying brother, you are playing the odds. Whos is going to be speeding, the Chevette, or the Corvette? Actually the only ticket I ever got for speeding was in a Chevette. December 1988, 70 in a 55 by a Ga State Trooper. If you want to fight crime you have to go where the crime is.

[Sgtar15]

You are only looking at one part of the stat though. Gun assaults. Factor in murders and gun robberies and it changes the story. If we look at numbers CA had more murders than any other state that year with over 1200 but again that is only part of the story.

 

 

We;; yeah, we have the most or second most people!

[redbarron06]

We;; yeah, we have the most or second most people!

Yes but you still only get 2 senate votes.

[Sgtar15]

And profiling only works on those profiled.

[redbarron06]

And profiling only works on those profiled.

I did not say it worked all the time but it does the majority of the time. That is why we have police profilers.

[Sgtar15]

Yes but you still only get 2 senate votes.

ANd 53 in the house, Tenn has 9 right?

[Sgtar15]

I did not say it worked all the time but it does the majority of the time. That is why we have police profilers.

I don't think it does, many criminals don't fit the profile at all. If profiling worked then all Tennesseans would be hicks and all Californians would be surfer dudes.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Sgtar15