Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Stop and Frisk


muzlblast
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Quit putting words or thoughts that do not exist in my post.

 

That is the type of tactics used by the liberals and progressives. You can do better than that

 

The issue does not reflect on the officers as a whole but the policy. The Judge said the policy as "practiced" was unconstitutional.

 

Like I said the officers violated the Terry Standards.

 

The terry standards are very easy to understand

 

The stop constitutionally permissible only when [/size]

 

1.The officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for for the stop [/size]

 

2. believe that criminal activity may be present [/size]

 

3. the suspect suspect may be armed and dangerous.[/size]

 

If you can not meet the conditions you have committed an unconstitutional search.

 

nor argument you make is going to change that

 

Saying he was dressed like a thug is a subjective basis not and objective basis

 

Your last sentence is totally inaccurate, beccause I believe "thug" was used interchangably with "gang member" in this discussion. We are specially trained and recieve ongoing intelligence as to the manner of dress, colors worn, and gang symbols and graffiti known to be used by gang members, and whose gang affiliation is linked to violent criminal behavior, and on-going criminal conspiracy. The identification of gang members by previous contact, their dress, tattoos, etc, is all valid parts of establishing RS for a Terry Stop. Just one factor may not be enough, but the totality of the circumstance is what can give us the RS for a stop,

Edited by Retcop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit putting words or thoughts that do not exist in my post.

 

That is the type of tactics used by the liberals and progressives. You can do better than that

 

The issue does not reflect on the officers as a whole but the policy. The Judge said the policy as "practiced" was unconstitutional.

 

Like I said the officers violated the Terry Standards.

 

The terry standards are very easy to understand

 

The stop constitutionally permissible only when [/size]

 

1.The officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for for the stop [/size]

 

2. believe that criminal activity may be present [/size]

 

3. the suspect suspect may be armed and dangerous.[/size]

 

If you can not meet the conditions you have committed an unconstitutional search.

 

nor argument you make is going to change that

 

Saying he was dressed like a thug is a subjective basis not and objective basis

Did you not read what I have been saying? out of 4.4 million stops only 1200 officers failed to site a reason for the stop. That does not mean that they actually did not have a reason but hell I'll give you that one. 1200 were stopped for no reason in 8 and a half years. That does not sound like a policy but of officers not complying with either the policy or the standards. That shows no error in the policy but in the execution of the policy by a far minority. There stopped an average of 500K people per year in a city of how many millions of residents not to mention tourists? In the vast majority of those stops the documented why the person was stopped. Does that not jive with Terry v Ohio? Only have of those stops resulted in a frisk. Those were documented as to why they were frisked. Does that also not comply with the TvO opinion? Was the policy to stop everybody? Was the policy to stop random people? Now I am certainly no fan of Bloomberg but I think we have to agree the man is not stupid. He is not going to institute a policy that is out right unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with a car load of frat boys...

 

I said just you....quit changing the question...lol

 

if i stop you for the sole reason because you are a white person in a black neighborhood does that meet the Terry standards?

No, of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge said it was unconstitutional in pretty clear and concise terms. End of story. Are we a nation of laws or opinions?

Well gee I am not sure as it seems that the only laws that make any difference any more are the opinions of judges. Her saying one thing is unconstitutional is her opinion and it is why we have appeal courts. And reading the opinion, she did not say that the poilcy was unconstitution but was being carried out in an unconstitution way. She also stated that there was an "unwriten" policy on how the written policy was being exicuted that was unconstitutional. In other words, she did not rule that the stops were unconsttutional, she did not rule that the frisks were unconstitutional she ruled that the targeting of minorities through an unwritten policy was unconstitutional even though it was targeting people that are higher odds to be criminals in crime in areas of hig crime rates. In her "opinion" it is unconstitutional to target those likley to be involved in crime in an area where crime is likley to happen during the peroid of time when it is likley to happen.

 

Back to your question her opinion is not law is it? Is a SCOTUS opinion law? Well in their opinion it is. In their opinion an officer can walk into your house and search if he meets a set of circumstanes. In their opinion you can be denied any right under certain circumstances and those circumstanes can change from day to day. So I guess we are indeed a nation of opinions and not laws. According to SCOTUS their opinion trumps the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is time for set term limits for SCOTUS.

 

The Founders never intended for the Court to have such sweeping power that effects every area of our life.

 

Of course, they never envisioned a Congress writing such extra-constitutional laws for the Court to rule on, or a Court that thinks it can write its own law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you not read what I have been saying? out of 4.4 million stops only 1200 officers failed to site a reason for the stop. That does not mean that they actually did not have a reason but hell I'll give you that one. 1200 were stopped for no reason in 8 and a half years. That does not sound like a policy but of officers not complying with either the policy or the standards. That shows no error in the policy but in the execution of the policy by a far minority. There stopped an average of 500K people per year in a city of how many millions of residents not to mention tourists? In the vast majority of those stops the documented why the person was stopped. Does that not jive with Terry v Ohio? Only have of those stops resulted in a frisk. Those were documented as to why they were frisked. Does that also not comply with the TvO opinion? Was the policy to stop everybody? Was the policy to stop random people? Now I am certainly no fan of Bloomberg but I think we have to agree the man is not stupid. He is not going to institute a policy that is out right unconstitutional.

That would be 9 million so the policy is resulting in 1-18 being frisked or the equivalent of every person once very 18 years. In that same 8.5 years crime rates went down not up while stop and frisks rocketed ten fold. So how many of those stops netted anything? Let's say a cop nets one in four, that would be 1.1 million people in jail. It didn't happen.

 

What was their reason? I want to? That tourist with the "I luv NY" T handbag looked like they were smuggling dope? .

 

BTW, I really loved the 1,200 statistic. What's that mean, their cops did 1.200 stops that some of them were so stupid they couldn't articulate a reason or they just didn't bother? My bet is the latter because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to articulate a reason. Care to guess how many of those stops the reason was identical down to the wording?

 

Nope just the sheer numbers involved, they're off the deep end. Terry Stop is not in jeopardy, Bloomberg stop is.

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be 9 million so the policy is resulting in 1-18 being frisked or the equivalent of every person once very 18 years. In that same 8.5 years crime rates went down not up while stop and frisks rocketed ten fold. So how many of those stops netted anything? Let's say a cop nets one in four, that would be 1.1 million people in jail. It didn't happen.

 

What was their reason? I want to? That tourist with the "I luv NY" T handbag looked like they were smuggling dope? .

 

BTW, I really loved the 1,200 statistic. What's that mean, their cops did 1.200 stops that some of them were so stupid they couldn't articulate a reason or they just didn't bother? My bet is the latter because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to articulate a reason. Care to guess how many of those stops the reason was identical down to the wording?

 

Nope just the sheer numbers involved, they're off the deep end. Terry Stop is not in jeopardy, Bloomberg stop is.

 

Tj

 

1/4 of one percent of the stops were not documented as to the reason behind the stop. so 99.75% of the stops were properly documented. And agin the stops themselves were never found to be unconstitutional in the judges opinion only how they were being applied to targeted minority demographics. The stops resulted in about 6 and a half percent being arrested and another 6-7% being cited on the spot. You know as well as I do that not everybody stopped by police go to jail or even get a ticket for what ever. I am not saying it was an effective way of doing police work My argument is ultimately that profiling suspects is in most cases an effective way of getting the job done. The judge found that the stops were based on racial profiling and that is why she assigned a federal observer to oversee the program to ensure that as it continues it is not being used to target a racial demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can't wait to see what that nets. Since 70% of all crime in the US is done by those racial groups, the cops would have to be purposely stupid to ignore that or indeed target even more "Grannies" as as good a word as any for don't really fit the profile. That's an Obama Administration fed too.

 

No, this thing was screwed up from the start just like anytime you get politicians and the courts involved is. I don't think the NYC cops were not doing their job before this government program which included stops and frisks. Doing it as a policy has done nothing but create an environment where its been overdone and attention brought to it.

 

Now comes the swing of the pendulum as every cop in NYC now will be more worried about being accused of racial profiling than doing his job. I can't blame them either.

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a blatant violation of one's civil rights : yet where are Obama and Holder on this ??. Ah it's because the lopsided party of Dimwitted Democraps passed it ,it's somehow OK ! ?. Let Jan Brewer of Arizona pass the same law and ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE !!!!!!!. It's another Dbl. standard shift the chit when no ones looking and while Congress and Senate were majority voting controlled by Democraps !!!.

 

Watch out Men the azz clowns are gonna get us soon ...

 

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/c176.htm

 

 

 

ObamaHolderjustUs.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a blatant violation of one's civil rights : yet where are Obama and Holder on this ??. Ah it's because the lopsided party of Dimwitted Democraps passed it ,it's somehow OK ! ?. Let Jan Brewer of Arizona pass the same law and ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE !!!!!!!. It's another Dbl. standard shift the chit when no ones looking and while Congress and Senate were majority voting controlled by Democraps !!!.

 

Watch out Men the azz clowns are gonna get us soon ...

 

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/c176.htm

 

 

ObamaHolderjustUs.jpeg

WTF are you talking about dude? You posted a link to a state law that prohibits retaining the information if the presn is not cited or arrested? This is a state law from 3 years ago and the subject of this thread is a city policy from 9 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Those states still have to follow Federal; laws you know, including gun laws. And, in the long run, the Feds will ALWAYS win against any local police conflict. Don't try to fool yourself, the Feds ALWAYS win, and that includes the ATF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those states still have to follow Federal; laws you know, including gun laws. And, in the long run, the Feds will ALWAYS win against any local police conflict. Don't try to fool yourself, the Feds ALWAYS win, and that includes the ATF.

It,doesn't seem to be an issue with states like CA and CO that have passed pot laws. The Feds are going to enforce what they want to and not enforce what they want to. What about the federal law passed years ago that was to build a fence on the Mexican border. How many miles of fence still hasn't been built? The states have ultimately been powerless since the ratification of the 17th amendment.

 

Repealing 17A is the key to getting our nation back.

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...