Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Stop and Frisk


muzlblast
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

So what did you do before Terry? Was there some huge crime epidemic history has failed to note?

Terry merely was a decision stating that what had been happening was constitutional, deciding the matter. You also might want to stay away from what happened prior to modern LE. The professionalism, the way that suspects are treated, the respect for individual civil rights has never been higher. The "good old days" weren't so good, and many of the things that people used to do as common practice would wind up with cops in prison these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Unless you are refering to another case, no judge has ruled on the law you posted a link to.

 

Then I must apologize for my ignorance as I thought that was what this was about ??.

 

A federal judge in New York has ruled New York City’s controversial “stop and frisk” law unconstitutional, saying it is a “form of racial profiling.”

The judge noted that the policy, which allows officers to briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is in the process of committing or is about to commit a crime, goes too far. It also permits pat downs if the officer feels he or she is in danger.

The judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, noted that African Americans and Hispanics are the target of the vast majority of these detentions — higher than the rate at which they are responsible for crime.

“While a person’s race may be important if it fits the description of a particular crime suspect, it is impermissible to subject all members of a racially defined group to heightened police enforcement because some members of that group are criminals,” Scheindlin wrote. “The Equal Protection Clause does not permit race-based suspicion.”

Scheindlin has appointed a third party to review the policy and make necessary changes.

She is also calling for “an immediate change to certain policies and activities of the NYPD, a trial program requiring the use of body-worn cameras in one precinct per borough (and) a community-based joint remedial process to be conducted by a court-appointed facilitator.”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been a chief supporter of the “stop and frisk” policy, but privacy activists and minority groups have decried the practice.

Bloomberg has argued that the law has led to a significant reduction in crime, but Scheindlin said that is irrelevant when it comes to the law’s constitutionality.

 

An neither Bloomberg nor city district attorneys were able to verify a reduction in crime rate as a result of Stop and Frisk ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I must apologize for my ignorance as I thought that was what this was about ??.

 

My point all along has been that this was thrown out on racial profiling not on the stop and frisk process because it is pretty much used nationwide. This program was based in high crime areas which happen to be high minority areas so there is going to be lop sided numbers. While whites in this area where stopped less (less white people to stop) they actually had a higher percentage of contraband by a few tenths of a percent. What the judge more or less said, at least as far as how I read it, is that the police can not show an increased presence in a high crime area if that area is also filled with high rates minorities. Now if I am reading it wrong, please point it out to me. I have an open mind. We also know in her opinion that she mentioned "neighborhood watch" programs as a form of racial profiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Was the topic Stop and Frisk ? An what part were you unclear about ? This is the Stop and Frisk law of New York which clearly violates civil and presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law . What Legal right does ANYONE have to STOP another person and FRISK THEM ?.

 

There must be a reason , an why does this only pertain too a population of 1 million or more ? Isn't the law the law for everyone !?.

 

Apparently not when you consider HOW LONG IT TOOK before a Judge declared it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHICH WAS OVER THREE YEARS !.

 

An temporary questioning was in reality STOPPING AND FRISKING for no other purpose than to confiscate any and all firearms within the City of New York . Perhaps some of you weren't aware Bloomberg has had a thing about BANNING and CONFISCATING ALL FIREARMS ...

 

AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to temporary

questioning of persons in public places in cities with a population of

one million or more

Became a law July 16, 2010, with the approval of the Governor.

Passed by a majority vote, three-fifths being present.

 

 

Perhaps I'd better lower my expectations of comprehension on this site , seems some of you aren't quite up too speed ...

You, sir are the one who is not up to speed.

 

What role have we given to our LEO? Do you have any idea what a police offier's job is, or how they accomplish it?

 

They NEVER have the right to stop and frisk someone?

 

WTF? I mean really, WTF?!

 

BTW: As Red has been trying to say over and over, the objections brought were that TOO MANY PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE BEING STOPPED ND FRISKED, as a % of the total number of people stopped.

 

I don't believe this ruling is going to change LEO activity much at all. Good officers will still be using their skill, training and experience to determine if reasonble suspicion exists that a crime is, has, or is about to be committed. And they will do their job.

 

The only thing this ruling does is take some of the cops who are already burned out, tired of being sued every time the do their jobs, and ensure they will stop being pro-active protectors of the community.

 

What a win for minority criminals, and what a huge loss for the sheep they prey upon. Tie your sheepdogs to a tree, and see how the wolves prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You, sir are the one who is not up to speed.

 

What role have we given to our LEO? Do you have any idea what a police offier's job is, or how they accomplish it?

 

They NEVER have the right to stop and frisk someone?

 

WTF? I mean really, WTF?!

 

BTW: As Red has been trying to say over and over, the objections brought were that TOO MANY PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE BEING STOPPED ND FRISKED, as a % of the total number of people stopped.

 

I don't believe this ruling is going to change LEO activity much at all. Good officers will still be using their skill, training and experience to determine if reasonble suspicion exists that a crime is, has, or is about to be committed. And they will do their job.

 

The only thing this ruling does is take some of the cops who are already burned out, tired of being sued every time the do their jobs, and ensure they will stop being pro-active protectors of the community.

 

What a win for minority criminals, and what a huge loss for the sheep they prey upon. Tie your sheepdogs to a tree, and see how the wolves prosper.

 

We are not sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then I must apologize for my ignorance as I thought that was what this was about ??.

 

 

An neither Bloomberg nor city district attorneys were able to verify a reduction in crime rate as a result of Stop and Frisk ...

 

 

Did You need it written in Blood ????? .

 

 

Fully aware of how police ( Most Police ) do their jobs , however their not all created equal ,nor are ordinary citizens always criminals !!!...

Edited by BushXM15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know why there were anot able to articulte the programs effects. They looked at nothing but raw numbers and percentage of cites, and arrestes. If we actually look at the stats. http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/indexcrimes/Regions.pdf

 

Yea maybe you are only going to get a small percentage of actually cited or arrested but the increased police showing also has an effet. Down over the last 10 years in every catagory listed. Some by more than 65%. Now I am sure that other factors apply here but nobody can say that an increased police presence does not lower crime especially in areas were there is a high crime rate to start with. Obviously this isnt all crime but a list of some of the most violent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with 100 cops per square mile................................

 

What we're talking about here is a city where guns are illegal and their police has a mandate to stop and frisk people to look for guns.

 

You can keep your police state Nirvanna. I'll keep my guns thanks.

 

 

Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with 100 cops per square mile................................

 

What we're talking about here is a city where guns are illegal and their police has a mandate to stop and frisk people to look for guns.

 

You can keep your police state Nirvanna. I'll keep my guns thanks.

 

 

Tj

how about taking a minute to actually read both what I have stated in this thread and what was in they judges opinion, hell just the last 2 pages of the opinion sets a clear message of the judges political agenda.. The police in your home town stop and frisk as do all of them around the nation. In this case that was not found to be unconstitutional. The practice of concentrating police effort in minority areas where crimes rates are higher is what was found to be unconstitutional, guess what, the police in your town do that too, but I guess some people here are going to keep their eyes closed because of a pure hatred for Bloomberg which nobody here likes but even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some comparisons for crime USA and pick a country . This is UK vs USA and I know I'm safer with my guns !. The sewer across the pond needs a healthy flushing , so much for gun confiscation as a tool for law and order . Brits have a HUGE Drug problem as well as ethic dilemma to deal with .

I also read FBI compiled stats 2000- 2011 that violent crime is down considerably and has been on a steady decline according too graphs and charts since 1987 , I can't copy it and it was a huge Pdf and It took quite awhile to find the 1987 stats at justice Dept. it ...

 

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

 

 

FBI Stats : http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

 

  • n 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.
  • When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.
  • There were an estimated 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011.
  • Aggravated assaults accounted for the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement at 62.4 percent. Robbery comprised 29.4 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.9 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2011.
  • Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault

 

Courtesy of FBI and NSA : As they bumped my computer twice while searching site ...

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...