Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Stop and Frisk


muzlblast
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

That is not true, in any crime unless it is committed by equal number of people from each demographic will have a statistical odd. Now that does not always work. My previous example "serial killers". Historically and statistically are white males. Remember the DC snipers? they were black, outside of the norm. But we can also refer to that event as an act of terrorism. What are we generally looking for with an act of terrorism in the US? A Muslim, John Allen Mohammad and Malvo were both Muslims. I don't seem to remimber the DC sniper stuff being religiously motivated though could be wrong about that but we do know that while in prison Malvo wrote about Jihad and about OBL.

 

So using profiles in some cases are way off but in most cases they are not far from the bullseye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That table in Wikipedia is pretty useless to make an argument with. Tennessee has a gun rate of 2.5 murders per 1,000,000, Illinois which has Chicago has 2.8 per 100,000. If I were to give an honest answer I would have to say that pro 2A laws nor restrictive gun laws are the primary determinant of murder rates . Not a big enough difference in the numbers to make a correlation either way and that there are probably other factors at work. New York state has a rate of 2.7 per 100,000 and Texas has a 3.2 rate. If pro 2A laws are supposed to lower the rate explain why New York has a lower rate than Texas? It is at best an intellectually dishonest argument that gun laws are the primary determiners of murder rates.

 

The Constitution is an all in or all out argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that anti gun laws violate the 2A but you don't mind that stop and frisk violates the Fourth Amendment. That is an argument worth of only a progressive or political hack. So next time don't tell me you are for the 2A and oppose federal gun laws while supporting stop and frisk. That argument makes you the equal of the progressives. If you want the Constitution to work you need to be all in.

Edited by gshayd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is racial stereotyping. Or it shouldn't be.

 

It is wrong.

 

The argument that it reduces crime is probably true, unless you consider illegal search and seizure a crime like I do. Crime is low in prison too, that doesn't mean I want to live in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had 'Stop & Frisk' in Detroit, decades ago. It is nothing but an illegal search. Illegal searches will reduce crime as long as you don't count the illegal search as one of the crimes.

 

Good to see some understand the criminal's rights are OUR rights. The U.S. Constitution does not allow any 'Free Lunches'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That table in Wikipedia is pretty useless to make an argument with. Tennessee has a gun rate of 2.5 murders per 1,000,000, Illinois which has Chicago has 2.8 per 100,000. If I were to give an honest answer I would have to say that pro 2A laws nor restrictive gun laws are the primary determinant of murder rates . Not a big enough difference in the numbers to make a correlation either way and that there are probably other factors at work. New York state has a rate of 2.7 per 100,000 and Texas has a 3.2 rate. If pro 2A laws are supposed to lower the rate explain why New York has a lower rate than Texas? It is at best an intellectually dishonest argument that gun laws are the primary determiners of murder rates.

 

The Constitution is an all in or all out argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that anti gun laws violate the 2A but you don't mind that stop and frisk violates the Fourth Amendment. That is an argument worth of only a progressive or political hack. So next time don't tell me you are for the 2A and oppose federal gun laws while supporting stop and frisk. That argument makes you the equal of the progressives. If you want the Constitution to work you need to be all in.

Stop and frisk was not thrown out based of 4A violations it was thrown out on racial bias. Across the board there were about 6% of arrests made in stop and frisk through out each demographic, white black or hispanic. Now just over half the population of NY is either black or hispanic yet about 84% of the stops were black and hispanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that stop and frisk is most prevalent in Harlem. At least that is what is implied by reporting.

 

They aren't being stopped because they are black, they are being stopped because ithe area has an alarmingly high crime rate. It isn't about race.

 

Now, that being said, it is still unconstitutional regardless of the skin tone of the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I break areas of this country down into two geographic categories.

 

1. Free States

2. Peoples Republics

 

In Peoples Republics like New York the constitution has become nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

 

 

Name the so called "Free States" that aren't affected by the latest Fed Obama laws please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No that would be stereotyping, which is perfectly legal. And it is true many criminals don't fit the profile but many more do. Which would you rather do pick the M&M's out of the trail mix or the peanuts?

 

That table in Wikipedia is pretty useless to make an argument with. Tennessee has a gun rate of 2.5 murders per 1,000,000, Illinois which has Chicago has 2.8 per 100,000. If I were to give an honest answer I would have to say that pro 2A laws nor restrictive gun laws are the primary determinant of murder rates . Not a big enough difference in the numbers to make a correlation either way and that there are probably other factors at work. New York state has a rate of 2.7 per 100,000 and Texas has a 3.2 rate. If pro 2A laws are supposed to lower the rate explain why New York has a lower rate than Texas? It is at best an intellectually dishonest argument that gun laws are the primary determiners of murder rates.

 

The Constitution is an all in or all out argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that anti gun laws violate the 2A but you don't mind that stop and frisk violates the Fourth Amendment. That is an argument worth of only a progressive or political hack. So next time don't tell me you are for the 2A and oppose federal gun laws while supporting stop and frisk. That argument makes you the equal of the progressives. If you want the Constitution to work you need to be all in.

Texas has a higher rate mostly due to the 1,255 mile open border with Mexico which happens to export drugs and guns along with illegal aliens.

 

A significant number of those killed by firearms in Texas are found out in the sticks with a single GSW to the head and are Mexican Citizens. Of course there are probably an like number that are allowed to dig their own graves and are never found.

 

Either way, Liberals are to blame for both problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Name the so called "Free States" that aren't affected by the latest Fed Obama laws please.

Many Free States like Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana to name a few have passed laws and resolutions declaring various "Obama laws" will not be observed.

 

The county commissioners in the bordering county to mine instructed the sheriff to detain and escort any federal agents out of the county who abuse citizens rights. The sheriff in my county also put BATF agents on notice. These are two examples that come to mind locally, but is also found state wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that stop and frisk is most prevalent in Harlem. At least that is what is implied by reporting.

They aren't being stopped because they are black, they are being stopped because ithe area has an alarmingly high crime rate. It isn't about race.

Now, that being said, it is still unconstitutional regardless of the skin tone of the victim.

I understand that it is not about race but about the demographic make up of the area they were in and it being a high crime area. According to NYPDs own reports the amount of contriband and wepons found were a higher percentage on whites than blacks or hispanics. This is what got the policy thrown out.

 

Now I could be wrong and I am sure that the LEOs here will correct me if I am but if a crime has been committed lets just say jay walking for the sake of argument, the officer can stop you, detain, you or what ever you want to call it. At that point he can do a frisk to look for weapons if he belives you may be armed and/or dangerous. I think that was upheld in a SCOTUS case somewhere. Now lets put that into the context of location. Harlem or one of the other boroughs of NYC that has a high crime rate and a high rate of gang participation. I dont think that any resonable person would say at that point the appearence of a person especially how they are dressed can do a lot towards raising suspesion. If you are looking like the head of the latin kings I dont think any reasonable person would fault the officer for a quick frisk for his own safety.

 

Now we all have our own opinions as to what 4A means to us. Personally I think without a warrent as it is spelled out in 4A that no search or siezure is Consitutional but SCOTUS does not agree and until those decisions are overturned or a new ammendment is made, it seems to be the law of the land so we have to role with that. Now in the 12,000 reports of out some 4.4 million stops over 8 years where the officers failt to note on the reports why the person was stopped there is a huge issue and I think we are all on the same page on that one. But on the remaining what ever percent, the officers were at least able to site cause for the stop. Half of those where the officers actually did a frisk, the officers were able to site cause for the frisk. Now add in all of the absolutly stupid law a city like NY can come up with, an officer has litterly a smorgasboard of violations that he can pretty much stop anybody he wants to. Compound that with the dress of a thug that seems to be very popular in inner city neighborhoods and what do you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop and frisk was not thrown out based of 4A violations it was thrown out on racial bias. Across the board there were about 6% of arrests made in stop and frisk through out each demographic, white black or hispanic. Now just over half the population of NY is either black or hispanic yet about 84% of the stops were black and hispanics.

From the judges decision "Scheindlin wrote that the city “acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD's practice of making "unconstitutional" stops" The only part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that deals with searches is the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

It was thrown out because it was an unreasonable search because it was based on racial profiling and not probable cause which violated the Fourth Amendment. How can a reasonable search under the law be based on racial profiling?

 

​Either you are all in and support the Constitution to the letter and spirit of it or you are all out there with the progressive mobs and political hacks undermining it. That is the plain truth of it. if you make the argument the Fourth Amendment can be violated for good reasons then you can't honestly turn around and argue that the Second Amendment can't be violated for good reasons.

 

 

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-city-police-department-commissioner-ray-kelly-blasts-stop-and-frisk-ruling-violent-crime-spike-proposed-reforms-article-1.1430144#ixzz2cZrj2tjS

Edited by gshayd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But they can in NY.

My understanding is that this has been misrepresented in the press. Even in NY, the Officer must establish reasonable suspicion prior to the pat down. I think the NYPD and the City have done a very poor PR job with this, including what they named it.

 

Is this departmental policy, or was it codified into law? Anyone have a link to the statute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might have been misrepresented in the press. The attorneys for NYC had a chance to tell their side of the case to the Judge. The Judge found their case lacking and even appointed a federal monitor to oversee the NYPD. This case was tried in a Federal Court and not the Press.

 

the reference would be New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50

 

and the precedent cited is Terry vs. Ohio

 

Under Terry Vs. Ohio If the officer can give particular objective and a reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity may be present or that the suspect may be armed and dangerous.

 

if you stop a known gang member who in the past has committed armed crimes and you see signs of criminal activity I would say good call

 

If you stop a minority who you do not know anything about and there was no evidence of criminal activity I would say bad call. You can not give me a particular objective and reasonable basis for the stop and frisk nor was there any criminal activity present.

 

What the Judge saw was probably too many complaints from those searched and the officers couldn't explain why they did a stop and frisk on the individual. if the officers had been able to meet the terry standards we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Remember the attaboy rule. It only takes one oh crap to wipe out hundreds of atta boys.

Edited by gshayd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...