Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 91

Thread: Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

  1. #16
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    The key is simple. It CAN help, but it is too easily misused and abused.

    As was stated in that last article, it is a precarious situation. It needs to watched and controlled carefully, otherwise it will be misused and work against its main purpose.

    As many studies have proven, you give too much power to any group of individuals (the one study in mind is "prisoners" vs "guards") and they will start to misuse it.

    So, what is keeping the cops in check with this one? A complaint quota? A Frisk/Felony ratio?

  2. #17

    Default

    It doesn't work, but that's only the practical aspect.

    It's wrong in theory; people who are innocent are forced to be collateral-damage in a "war on crime."

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    Deterrence.
    Nonsense. The data doesn't support it. Stop and frisk was a minor program in the 1990s; however, homicide plummeted. Other cities did not radically expand their programs as NYC did, and homicide dropped.

    This means there's much less likely to be a gun in the mix when the get into an altercation. This doesn't mean that they don't have a gun back in the apartment, and may at some point decide to hunt someone down and shoot them. But if they have a gun on them, it's much more likely to get used at the spur of the moment (they see a rival gang member in their territory, a rival drug dealer on their street corner, etc.)
    So now you think that people who carry handguns on the street are "more likely to use them on the spur of the moment?"

    What happened to your 2nd Amendment argument? Or do you omit people not in "the criminal class?" Like George Zimmerman.

    How easily you move between supporting one Amendment and discarding another.

  4. #19
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    It's the American Whey.

  5. #20

    Default

    Note I said criminal class (criminal defined as someone who's been convicted of a felony.) I don't have a problem with anyone adult who can pass a criminal record check carrying a gun. Ex cons and 16 yo gangbangers don't fall into that category.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Nonsense. The data doesn't support it. Stop and frisk was a minor program in the 1990s; however, homicide plummeted. Other cities did not radically expand their programs as NYC did, and homicide dropped.

    So now you think that people who carry handguns on the street are "more likely to use them on the spur of the moment?"

    What happened to your 2nd Amendment argument? Or do you omit people not in "the criminal class?" Like George Zimmerman.

    How easily you move between supporting one Amendment and discarding another.

  6. #21
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    BBMW, you are convoluting the argument.

    Most people, on the street, HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD. So how is it OK to frisk them, eliminating their 4th Amendment rights?

    By the same token, you have no problem with "law abiding" citizens having a gun and maintaining their 2nd Amendment rights.

    What Zip is saying is that you are supporting one Amendment, BECAUSE IT IS A "RIGHT", but not another, by the same token.

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    BBMW, you are convoluting the argument.
    This is an old argument. It's either law-abiding citizens or career criminals.

    Law-abiding citizens never commit crimes; all crimes are committed by career criminals.

    It's a handy viewpoint; too bad it's not the real world.

  8. #23

    Default

    I don't mind getting stopped; it's the frisk that would upset me the most.

    It really seems the debate has gone past what's happening in NYC to whether Terry v Ohio is unconstitutional (which is a difficult thing to think about, since if the Supreme Court said it's constitutional, then it must be constitutional - who else can decide? But then the same was argued about Plessy v Ferguson).

  9. #24

    Default

    The SC has revisited decisions.

    I don't mind getting stopped; it's the frisk that would upset me the most.
    I think there's a popular misconception that these stops are usually polite and non-threatening.

    Any interaction between the police and an unknown person carries the risk of violence. If you're stopped for speeding, what's in your mind as the cop walks over to your car isn't quite the same as what he's thinking.

    In every year since 2002, about 50% of the people stopped were 14-24 years old. If you believe the UF-250 forms that are filled out afterward, there is a reason for the stop; it's not a random checkpoint. So there's already a level of suspicion by the police. The person targeted may be guilty of something silly, like having a joint in his pocket, so he might react in a way that makes the police even more suspicious. words aren't always chosen carefully in these situations.

    20% of the arrests (the greatest number are for misdemeanor marijuana possession) require the use of force.

    Stop and frisk incident on June 3, 2011 that was recorded. The recording is the audio, not video.


  10. #25
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    That video sums up the whole situation very well.

    New York State law prohibits the use of quotas for arrests, summonses and stops by the NYPD
    Really?

  11. #26
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    Without stop and frisk, you going to see a lot more casual shootings in bad neighborhoods.
    How do you know?

  12. #27
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Stopping and Frisking... Cops

    by Norm Stamper
    34-year veteran police officer who retired as Seattle's chief of police in 2000

    If you're a cop, you just do it. Routinely. You stop people, you frisk and question people. You do it all the time. In fact, if you were an NYPD officer between 2004 and the middle of last year, you and your co-workers did this a whopping 4.43 million times.

    It's reasonable to ask whether these officers know what it's like to be stopped, questioned, and frisked, especially as an innocent young black or Hispanic male.

    Years ago, the San Diego Police Department attempted to learn the effects of "field interrogation," or stop-and-frisk, on both crime suppression and community-police relations. We wanted our cops to know what it felt like to be on the receiving end of the practice.

    In the summer of '73, we flew a total of 25 officers from San Diego to San Jose, five at a time. Every morning we headed to the San Jose International Airport, dropped off the previous night's beat cops, picked up another five.

    The officers showed up, unarmed, in casual clothes, carrying a phony driver's license (with official police ID hidden in a shoe). We spent hours on safety issues and the vetting of individual "cover stories" before driving at dusk to specific locations and depositing the officers on the streets.

    They hung around parking lots, liquor stores, closed gas stations, areas that might arouse suspicion -- and trigger a spontaneous stop by San Jose officers. (Through an arrangement with that department's brass, a patrol unit was dispatched -- "check a suspicious person" -- if necessary, to ensure that all SDPD officers were afforded the opportunity to be stopped, patted down, and interrogated.)

    At the end of the night, before we returned to the hotel for debriefing, we turned on tape recorders and interviewed the San Diego officers, independently. I will never forget their reactions, most of which could be summed up in a single word: fear.

    A sampling, reconstructed from memory (capturing the essence, not verbatim quotes): My mouth went dry... my knees were shaking... all I could see was that gun on his hip... I know it's irrational -- I mean, I'm a cop -- but when that police car swooped down on me I thought I was a goner...

    When the officers had all returned to San Diego, we filed into a classroom and heard from experts in law, officer safety, interpersonal communication, cultural competence. Important, relevant topics. But nothing had a greater impact than the experiential learning in San Jose.

    Lost in the legal and political drama of New York's failed defense of its stop-and-frisk policies is the reality, the power of routine. And the absence of empathy for those who are unlawfully stopped and questioned, many repeatedly.

    That handful of cops in San Diego got the message: You cannot, by law or department policy, stop and question people without a reasonable suspicion that they have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime, nor can you pat them down without a reasonable suspicion that they are armed and presently dangerous.

    Our officers studied "Terry v. Ohio," reading the Supreme Court's virtual love letter to a 62-year-old Cleveland detective by the name of Martin McFadden, a cop whose able and courageous police work made "good law."

    Unfortunately, NYPD ignored this law and, in the process violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution. Perhaps if Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly could put themselves in the shoes of an innocent young black man, whose skin color has been criminalized by the city, they would understand how to use the legitimate public safety tool that is stop-and-frisk.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-s...&ir=New%20York

  13. #28

    Default

    I was here when there were 2,200 murders a year, when street muggings were a regular occurrence (and knew people who were mugged, including family members), when there was open drug dealing, even in good neighborhoods (and outright, open air drug supermarkets in bad ones.) NYC was very out of control for a long time. But the cops changed their attitude and figured it out, and stop and frisk was a big part of that. What they did worked, worked well, and has now worked for a long enough time that a lot of people have forgotten, or never experienced the bad old days.

    Yes, the stop and frisk tactic is likely unconstitutional. So maybe it should be gotten rid of. But no one should pretend that doing so is not going to have negative consequence. The forces that created the problems in the seventies and eighties are still out there, and will take advantage of any opportunity to come back.



    Quote Originally Posted by Merry View Post
    How do you know?

  14. #29
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    BBMW, the reduction in crime has nothing to do with Stop and Frisk. Please show the stats from its implementation date and correlate that as a major factor in the crime rate reduction. They are not directly correlated.

    1. The policy is easily abused, and shows heavy predilection to racial profiling.
    2. The policy harms public/police relations.
    3. The policy shows no direct impact on the crime rates.
    4. The current use of the policy shows marginal apprehension and conviction rates.


    Even ignoring the constitutionality of it, it simply DOES NOT WORK.

  15. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    I was here when there were 2,200 murders a year, when street muggings were a regular occurrence (and knew people who were mugged, including family members), when there was open drug dealing, even in good neighborhoods (and outright, open air drug supermarkets in bad ones.) NYC was very out of control for a long time. But the cops changed their attitude and figured it out, and stop and frisk was a big part of that. What they did worked, worked well, and has now worked for a long enough time that a lot of people have forgotten, or never experienced the bad old days.
    Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. You were asked "how do you know", and you answered "because I know."

    I was here too. I could say climate change has influenced the reduction in crime, and it would be no more baseless than what you say.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software