close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

NYC 'Stop & Frisk'

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by barbedwiresmile, May 12, 2012.

  1. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    20,063
    2,162
    Jul 12, 2007
    Yes, that much you are correct about. You are in fact, lost. Recognizing when you are in fact ignorant, that right there is the first step in correcting ignorance.

    What he is saying, if YOUR contention that its a random stop were true, and 1 in 8 people stopped are criminals, that would mean that 1 in 8 people are criminals. The actual % of criminals is much less than 1 in 8, thus the stops are far from random. Thus they do a much better job of picking criminals out of the general population to check out than they would would be doing if it was in fact based on stopping random people on the street.

    Randy
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2012
  2. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    I didn't say profiling isn't somewhat more "effective" than completely random stops. I said 12% is still a pathetic figure since it means that 7 in 8 people stopped aren't doing anything illegal AT ALL. Keep on harrassing 7 of 8 people that aren't breaking any laws because they "fit the description". Then go wonder some more why people dislike cops. Done with thread.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2012

  3. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    15,176
    2,953
    May 4, 2003
    Actually, you said--repeatedly--that these stops were random and used an incomplete example where nothing was found as evidence of that. You presented no evidence of your own and no refutation of that given you. You said that these weren't Terry stops and had "nothing at all" in common with a proper Terry stop. You flaunted your ignorance repeatedly, played the race card, and have had your butt handed to you by the guys who do this on the street and defend this in court.

    It's not that you don't know what's going on; that's common and totally acceptable. It's that you embrace the public school self-esteem script of thinking that you opinion from ignorance is as valuable as educated opinions, and you refuse to do anything to cure your ignorance. To top it off, you act like a Democrat and try to move the goalposts and redefine your already stated position when fact runs against you.

    By all means, be done with the thread and let the grownups talk. There *are* issues in play here, but you're a distraction from them.
     
  4. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    It's a pleasure watching you operate, sir.
     
  5. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    10,065
    499
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Withdrawn.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2012
  6. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    I thought my point was made clear. These stops are profiling and aren't Terry stops. Tired of saying it.

    Sometimes profiling works, but at what cost? Pissing off those that aren't doing anything wrong and irritating constitutional scholars. And bringing backlash against police. Then police want to tighten down more. Vicious cycle. Is there a solution where more freedom is better than less freedom? Think about it.

    The OP article says a black man was stopped and searched for walking around with a bag. Nothing was found. He's not a fan of cops now and if 1 in 10 searches lead to someone with a gram of weed and an arrest, is it really worth it? Good chance that arrest would be thrown out anyway according to NCLiberty's earlier post.
     
  7. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,806
    4,306
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY
    Repeatedly making incorrect statements does not make them correct.
     
  8. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    He stood before the well of knowledge, turned his back, and stomped his feet.

    Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2
     
  9. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

  10. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,806
    4,306
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY
    Nice heads up collar, and a text book definition of a Terry Stop.


    Let the foot stamping begin.
     
  11. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    15,176
    2,953
    May 4, 2003
    Nothing illegal about hanging with friends in front of a closed store. Nothing illegal about finding and wearing a backpack. Surely people are free to walk away and not talk to the police.

    Must have been an unconstitutional random stop by some cop who was profiling poor minorities.

    Those that won't get it, don't get it.
     
  12. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

  13. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    15,176
    2,953
    May 4, 2003
  14. Will these stop and frisks soon apply to anyone trying to hide a Big Gulp? Will Bloomberg start suing neighboring states for selling foods with trans-fats to New Yorkers? I don't know why anyone would live there, but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of ANY policy endorsed by nanny stater Bloomberg.

    As far as stop and frisks, while they may not be random (at least technically) the standard of reasonable suspicion may need some reworking. If an officer has articulable facts and reasonable inferences to make a stop, but is wrong 85% of the time, I'd argue that's not an effective standard. I'm speaking as a practical and philosophical matter, not as a letter of the law matter.
     
  15. CAcop

    CAcop

    20,395
    3,010
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    Ask judge to come up with a new standard. They are the ones who make them via interpretations of existing law.
     
  16. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,806
    4,306
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY
    Lancesorbenson;

    Yes, please do by all means write of your concerns to the Supreme Court.


    We anxiously await their reply.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  17. Jud325

    Jud325

    215
    31
    Mar 30, 2011
    Shelocta, Pa.
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  18. I can see you and CACop didn't read that I wasn't talking about the letter of the law. Let me explain. NY can come up with their own policy, stricter than the minimum required by law. If initiating stop and frisks under the reasonable suspicion standard is yielding a 12% success rate, maybe they should change their standard. That would not require me contacting the Supreme Court and would technically still be legal, although in my opinion still wrong. My natural default is to by suspicious of any policy endorsed by your gun-hating, nanny state mayor.
     
  19. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,806
    4,306
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY
    The Mayor of the City of New York has absolutely NOTHING to do with NYPD Stop Question and Frisk procedures.

    They have been in place without change since at LEAST 1982 when I first learned them in the Police Academy.

    So your hatred of Bloomberg has no bearing on the topic at hand. These procedures were written to ensure full compliance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Whether you agree with the arrest rate or not is moot. There are a variety of reasons why stops are legally conducted that do not result in arrests, and they are all quite proper within the boundaries of current statute.

    Therefore, again, I suggest you take it up with them.
     
  20. DonGlock26

    DonGlock26

    47,920
    3,830
    Jan 18, 2001