Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-15-2013, 18:35   #1
NMG26
Senior Member
 
NMG26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 5,464
Stop and Frisk

Why is This even a minority thing? Seems like Stop and Frisk is wrong on more levels than that.





http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-judgment?lite
__________________
Bickford Schmeckler: ******* tyranny of logic!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
NMG26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 18:39   #2
Kichigai
気違い Was Mr30s
 
Kichigai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,052
Civil Liberties Issues
__________________
If you are in South Florida Check it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
and post up if you are interested
Kichigai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 19:48   #3
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
It is sort of questionable when it became "wrong" and if that made it wrong before it was wrong.

Being in NM I would think the history of the towns and laws would show that not only was stop and frisk practiced it was widely accepted where a town had, say a "no firearms" ordinance. Being a stranger was probable cause enough and being known was sometimes more than enough.

So for over a hundred years it wasn't really an issue and thing still went along without the earth going off it's axis. We get a SCOTUS ruling on one case here and there and people start screaming about it as if it had never legally happened since 1776 when the fact is it was practiced for over 125 years FROM 1776 on.

Not that I am in favor of blanket carefree unfettered application but the reality is when a town decided there was a problem with guns in town that needed to be addressed,the officers of the day were given a free hand to make it happen and nobody went crying to the SCOTUS about it.

I really think we would be best off served with a little more "State's Rights" in terms of dealing with unique situations and problems and a little less of running to Big Brother when we don't like the rules.

For instance, in my State it is illegal for me to transfer or sell any portion of a game animal to anyone else except by consumption. We according to the F&W folks have a problem with poaching for that purpose and they have a lot of ability to search a vehicle in certain areas. Other States have long deer seasons and they are nearly a nuisance, with no such restrictions. Now, which State should be forced to adopt the other State's laws so we can have the same thing throughout the land?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 10:58   #4
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMG26 View Post
Why is This even a minority thing? Seems like Stop and Frisk is wrong on more levels than that.





http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-judgment?lite
Perhaps you'd provide some details on what you feel is wrong?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 15:09   #5
cdog533
Zombie Killer
 
cdog533's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 696
My anti-government nature tells me that stop-and-frisk is not good.

But my practical side says if police can target a specific area, or a specific group, and get good results, then that is good police work.

It can't help but be statistically racially biased. If all the gangs and shootings are in one neighborhood, and that neighborhood is 80% Italian (or whatever), then MOST of the people you stop are gonna be Italian.
__________________
QUOTE -- Originally Posted by Chuck TX:
If two guys are looking at a riding lawn mower, the one that looks like 'Dirty Steve' from "Young Guns" will probably spit on your shoe if you walk too close.

Last edited by cdog533; 08-16-2013 at 15:12..
cdog533 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 17:39   #6
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdog533 View Post
My anti-government nature tells me that stop-and-frisk is not good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Perhaps you'd provide some details on what you feel is wrong?

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 17:51   #7
Buffyfan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Perhaps you'd provide some details on what you feel is wrong?
What's wrong?
There's no RAS.
It's an intimidation tactic.
It's got no legal basis or standing
There's almost no outcome, very few results
It makes cops think they are judge and jury

Perhaps you can say what's -right- about it. Would you want your grandmother to be stopped and frisked every time she left the house? If not, why not?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 18:32   #8
NMPOPS
Senior Member
 
NMPOPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arizona / New Mexico
Posts: 838
Send a message via ICQ to NMPOPS
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
It is sort of questionable when it became "wrong" and if that made it wrong before it was wrong.

Being in NM I would think the history of the towns and laws would show that not only was stop and frisk practiced it was widely accepted where a town had, say a "no firearms" ordinance. Being a stranger was probable cause enough and being known was sometimes more than enough.

So for over a hundred years it wasn't really an issue and thing still went along without the earth going off it's axis. We get a SCOTUS ruling on one case here and there and people start screaming about it as if it had never legally happened since 1776 when the fact is it was practiced for over 125 years FROM 1776 on.

Not that I am in favor of blanket carefree unfettered application but the reality is when a town decided there was a problem with guns in town that needed to be addressed,the officers of the day were given a free hand to make it happen and nobody went crying to the SCOTUS about it.

I really think we would be best off served with a little more "State's Rights" in terms of dealing with unique situations and problems and a little less of running to Big Brother when we don't like the rules.

For instance, in my State it is illegal for me to transfer or sell any portion of a game animal to anyone else except by consumption. We according to the F&W folks have a problem with poaching for that purpose and they have a lot of ability to search a vehicle in certain areas. Other States have long deer seasons and they are nearly a nuisance, with no such restrictions. Now, which State should be forced to adopt the other State's laws so we can have the same thing throughout the land?
I understand what you're saying but the Bill of Rights was adopted for just this purpose. States Rights only includes area not covered by the Constitution. Long ago the NM Supreme Court filled that Right to Carry laws was the jurisdiction of the State and not towns or counties.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
__________________
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
NRA Endowment Life Member, Glock Armorer
NMPOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 20:05   #9
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMPOPS View Post
I understand what you're saying but the Bill of Rights was adopted for just this purpose. States Rights only includes area not covered by the Constitution. Long ago the NM Supreme Court filled that Right to Carry laws was the jurisdiction of the State and not towns or counties.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
Certainly and what that says is that it is NOT the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. They recognized that the voters of different States had different concerns and could tailor their regulation of the Second Amendment to their needs.

What was the ruling if the voters of the State decided it should be the decision of the towns and counties? wouldn't the voters have that right?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2013, 19:20   #10
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffyfan View Post
What's wrong?
There's no RAS.
It's an intimidation tactic.
It's got no legal basis or standing
There's almost no outcome, very few results
It makes cops think they are judge and jury

Perhaps you can say what's -right- about it. Would you want your grandmother to be stopped and frisked every time she left the house? If not, why not?
Of course it has legal standing---Terry has been the legal foundation for such things for decades. If you review the testimony of the officers that were actually doing these stops, you'd see that there was plenty of RS, and it even got documented for court. It's a tactic that has helped drive NYC's crime rate down significantly, so the idea that it's pure intimidation doesn't pass, either.

Your last paragraph is pure emotional drivel, so I'll just point that out and leave it lay.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 03:33   #11
NMPOPS
Senior Member
 
NMPOPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arizona / New Mexico
Posts: 838
Send a message via ICQ to NMPOPS
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Certainly and what that says is that it is NOT the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. They recognized that the voters of different States had different concerns and could tailor their regulation of the Second Amendment to their needs.

What was the ruling if the voters of the State decided it should be the decision of the towns and counties? wouldn't the voters have that right?
True to a point. States can regulate right to carry (background checks, permits etc) they they must allow it with is why the SCOTUS ruled against DC and Chicago and why Illinois needs to pass some sort of carry law. Places like New Jersey and California, where it is all but impossible to get a CCW, do issue them occasionally so they squeak by.

Unlike Illinois, New Mexico does not allow cities to enact their own gun control laws. Voters would have to convene a State Constitutional Convention to change the law, and thats not easy.
__________________
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
NRA Endowment Life Member, Glock Armorer
NMPOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 12:23   #12
NMG26
Senior Member
 
NMG26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 5,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Of course it has legal standing---Terry has been the legal foundation for such things for decades. If you review the testimony of the officers that were actually doing these stops, you'd see that there was plenty of RS, and it even got documented for court. It's a tactic that has helped drive NYC's crime rate down significantly, so the idea that it's pure intimidation doesn't pass, either.

Your last paragraph is pure emotional drivel, so I'll just point that out and leave it lay.
I probably don't like it because I do carry legally. I would not want to be always explaining myself on the whim of a police officer.

This thread was a good education to me on "terry stops". Never really looked at it before. The laws here in NM don't seem to common that type of treatment. I have been asked for ID twice by LE here when I was minding my business and they were minding theirs. Both times I was carrying, and both times they did not ask, so I did not tell.

One time in a Walgreens the employees called the police on me, because they did not like the way I looked. The officer asked for ID, as I reached for it in my fanny pack the officer asked if I had a weapon in there. I told him I did and that I had a CCL. Ended up showing the CCL without confirmation on the 638 in another compartment.

I guess I'm just used to being respected.

.
__________________
Bickford Schmeckler: ******* tyranny of logic!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by NMG26; 08-20-2013 at 12:24..
NMG26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 13:55   #13
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMG26 View Post
I probably don't like it because I do carry legally. I would not want to be always explaining myself on the whim of a police officer.

This thread was a good education to me on "terry stops". Never really looked at it before. The laws here in NM don't seem to common that type of treatment. I have been asked for ID twice by LE here when I was minding my business and they were minding theirs. Both times I was carrying, and both times they did not ask, so I did not tell.

One time in a Walgreens the employees called the police on me, because they did not like the way I looked. The officer asked for ID, as I reached for it in my fanny pack the officer asked if I had a weapon in there. I told him I did and that I had a CCL. Ended up showing the CCL without confirmation on the 638 in another compartment.

I guess I'm just used to being respected.

.
Maybe it's the simple reason that the circumstances are different where you live.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 18:11   #14
NMG26
Senior Member
 
NMG26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 5,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Maybe it's the simple reason that the circumstances are different where you live.
Can't argue that.
__________________
Bickford Schmeckler: ******* tyranny of logic!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
NMG26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 09:58   #15
walt cowan
Senior Member
 
walt cowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: absurdistan
Posts: 9,999
it really doesn't work. we would pat search and check the belongings of 6 to 8 hundred inmates headed out to the prison yard every day. they still killed each other out there on the regular.
__________________
the nsa was the first to read this post. eric was the second.

Last edited by walt cowan; 08-21-2013 at 10:00..
walt cowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 06:06   #16
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,668


The media has done a great job turning Stop & Frisk into some alien procedure that people believe is only practiced by the NYPD. Bottom line the term is nothing more than the mixing of two common LE investigative acts, investigatory stops and weapons frisks based on reasonable articulable suspicion, that are conducted by every agency across this land.

What you have here is a liberal NY court ruling that a percentage of the stops had no RAS and were instead unfairly racially based even though NYPD strongly disputes that and has countered with numbers to show the stops modeled crime rates.

Investigation is a vital aspect of LE work. Officers will never be right all of the time, the standard is if they are reasonable. It might not be illegal to be behind a closed business at 3am wearing gloves and holding a screwdriver but someone should probably ask what you are doing. If you are a burglar it steps up to something more, if you are a repair man we go our separate ways.
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:35.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,021
331 Members
690 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31