Thousands march against NYC’s controversial ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy

Jerry · Jun 20, 2012

Thousands march against NYC’s controversial ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy
Published: 18 June, 2012, 07:31

Several thousand demonstrators have joined a silent march down New York City’s Fifth Avenue to show their defiance of NYPD’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy, which they say discriminates against the city’s black and Latino communities.

~snip~

Bloomberg has defended the city’s policy, saying that it helped “take guns off the streets and save lives.”
But the NYCLU states that during frisks in 2011, a weapon was found just 1.9 per cent of the time. According to The New York Times, even in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods, police stopped more blacks than whites.

“Stop-and-frisk is a political tool, victimizing one group of people so another group feels protected,” Benjamin Todd Jealous, the president of the NAACP, said as quoted by The New York Times. “It’s humiliating hundreds of thousands of people.”

See also:
Stop-and-Frisk Statistics: The Root's Reader Survey

Father

[video=youtube;h1mewP8KzdM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h1mewP8KzdM[/video]

**************
It is wrong for NY to bend the rules and blur the line of what constitutes "suspicious" behavior. This law is unconstitutional and ineffective. Not only should it be taken down, but the law makers who penned it should loose their jobs and barred from serving a public office forever.

Your thoughts are welcome.

Sarcogito · Jun 20, 2012

Bloomberg gets off on having his own private army. Taking a stand against this policy has to be one of those things that the left and right can rally around together. At least I would hope so.

Tigger · Jun 20, 2012

I've got no problem with it whatsoever. If you're in a public space, you open yourself up to being considered suspicious and checked for the good of the whole public.

jamesrage · Jun 20, 2012

Jerry said:
See also:
Stop-and-Frisk Statistics: The Root's Reader Survey

Father

**************
It is wrong for NY to bend the rules and blur the line of what constitutes "suspicious" behavior. This law is unconstitutional and ineffective. Not only should it be taken down, but the law makers who penned it should loose their jobs and barred from serving a public office forever.

Your thoughts are welcome.

Seeing how Bloomberg likes to ignore the 2nd amendment it doesn't really surprise me that he would ignore the 4th amendment as well. This is blatantly unconstitutional just like his attampts to squash the 2nd amendment are. Personally I think blatantly ****ting on the Constitution should warrant a seven year prison term and permanent exile after the prison sentence is over.

jamesrage · Jun 20, 2012

Tigger said:
I've got no problem with it whatsoever. If you're in a public space, you open yourself up to being considered suspicious and checked for the good of the whole public.

The 4th amendment doesn't have squat to do with privacy expectations, it has everything to do with law enforcement needing a warrant to search and or seize you and your property. Walking out in public is not suspicious behavior.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

Tigger · Jun 20, 2012

jamesrage said:
The 4th amendment doesn't have squat to do with privacy expectations, it has everything to do with law enforcement needing a warrant to search and or seize you and your property. Walking out in public is not suspicious behavior.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

Remembering that I'm the guy who believes the US Constitution needs to be totally rewritten, James.....

jamesrage · Jun 20, 2012

Tigger said:
Remembering that I'm the guy who believes the US Constitution needs to be totally rewritten, James.....

It doesn't need to be totally rewritten. There is an amendment process for creating and or repealing amendments. If you don't like the 4th amendment then petition your elected officials to amend the constitution to repeal the 4th amendment.

Tigger · Jun 20, 2012

jamesrage said:
It doesn't need to be totally rewritten. There is an amendment process for creating and or repealing amendments. If you don't like the 4th amendment then petition your elected officials to amend the constitution to repeal the 4th amendment.

My issue is that the language and grammar it is written in is no longer understandable by the vast majority of American citizens. Beyond that it is woefully inadequate in a great deal of ways and to amend all of its failings would require more pages in Amendments that the document currently has in total. Therefore it would be much more useful to rewrite the document from scratch in corrected form.

Thunder · Jun 20, 2012

they need to either seriously refine the policy or drop it all together.

as it stands now, its just a blind and wide net being cast upon mostly black & Hispanic young males.

jamesrage · Jun 20, 2012

Tigger said:
My issue is that the language and grammar it is written in is no longer understandable by the vast majority of American citizens. Beyond that it is woefully inadequate in a great deal of ways and to amend all of its failings would require more pages in Amendments that the document currently has in total. Therefore it would be much more useful to rewrite the document from scratch in corrected form.

The language it it seems quite clear. Rewriting it would not stop politicians from blatantly violating it. Stopping and frisking people without a warrant regardless if it is random or a select group targeted blatantly violates the 4th amendment

Tigger · Jun 20, 2012

jamesrage said:
The language it it seems quite clear. Rewriting it would not stop politicians from blatantly violating it.

That would depend on how it was written.

jamesrage said:
Stopping and frisking people without a warrant regardless if it is random or a select group targeted blatantly violates the 4th amendment

It may be. It shouldn't be, but it likely is. Probably part of why our streets aren't safe these days.

jamesrage · Jun 20, 2012

Tigger said:
That would depend on how it was written. .

The constitution is written quite clear but elected officials enact blatantly anti-2nd amendment laws and in this case blatantly anti-4th amendment laws.

It may be. It shouldn't be, but it likely is

Its not a may be,It is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.

You have the right to be secure in your persons.No warrant no search.

Probably part of why our streets aren't safe these days.

Freedom is not supposed to be safe.

Tigger · Jun 20, 2012

jamesrage said:
The constitution is written quite clear but elected officials enact blatantly anti-2nd amendment laws and in this case blatantly anti-4th amendment laws.

If it's written in a way that they CAN disregard the meaning of the text, then it's written wrong.

jamesrage said:
Its not a may be,It is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. You have the right to be secure in your persons.No warrant no search.

That's part of what I have a problem with.... the "Right" to blatantly protect criminals and ne'er to wells.

jamesrage said:
Freedom is not supposed to be safe.

Then I have no use for it, as you already know.

Thunder · Jun 20, 2012

jamesrage said:
...Freedom is not supposed to be safe.

most in society understand that you can have complete freedom......or complete safety.

but you can never have both.

jamesrage · Jun 20, 2012

Tigger said:
If it's written in a way that they CAN disregard the meaning of the text, then it's written wrong.

The 4th amendment is clearly written. You need a warrant to detain and or search someone and their property.The right to be secure in your persons means the government IE law enforcement can not frisk you, unless they have a warrant.

That's part of what I have a problem with.... the "Right" to blatantly protect criminals and ne'er to wells.

The bill of rights is a restriction on the government.These things are aimed at protecting citizens from the government.That means that some criminals will get away with stuff,that means anti-American trash can freely speak their mind, that means people can use collect money and buy political ads.

Then I have no use for it, as you already know.

As someone who is very conservative you should be very patriotic and that means supporting the constitution.

Bob Blaylock · Jun 20, 2012

Tigger said:
My issue is that the language and grammar it is written in is no longer understandable by the vast majority of American citizens.

Only by those who do not agree with what is written—who assume it must be some serious flaw in the way that it is written that does not allow for some government usurpation of rights that they want to take place.

Tigger · Jun 21, 2012

jamesrage said:
The 4th amendment is clearly written. You need a warrant to detain and or search someone and their property.The right to be secure in your persons means the government IE law enforcement can not frisk you, unless they have a warrant.

Okay, then I simply disagree with it entirely.

jamesrage said:
The bill of rights is a restriction on the government.These things are aimed at protecting citizens from the government.That means that some criminals will get away with stuff,that means anti-American trash can freely speak their mind, that means people can use collect money and buy political ads.

Those are all significant flaws in my mind. A document that protects criminals, traitors, and imbeciles (aka politicians) cannot be worth very much in my mind.

jamesrage said:
As someone who is very conservative you should be very patriotic and that means supporting the constitution.

Ultra-Conservative/Authoritarian wasn't an option for "Lean" james.

Bob Blaylock said:
Only by those who do not agree with what is written—who assume it must be some serious flaw in the way that it is written that does not allow for some government usurpation of rights that they want to take place.

You need to remember that some of us don't believe that the vast majority of american citizens deserve most of those Rights to begin with, Bob.

Bob Blaylock · Jun 21, 2012

Tigger said:
You need to remember that some of us don't believe that the vast majority of american citizens deserve most of those Rights to begin with, Bob.

Then you live in the wrong country.

Tigger · Jun 21, 2012

Bob Blaylock said:
Then you live in the wrong country.

I know, and I've been looking for an alternative that I can live with. Hopefully one will come up soon so I can get out of this cesspool.

Kreton · Jun 21, 2012

I do not have issue with this policy being in place. It is not a violation of the 4th amendment at all. The 4th amendment reads

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

It clearly says against unreasonable searches, not against any searches. We can argue all day about what is or isnt unreasonable I suppose but in the end it is subject to interpretation. To me, if you are walking around in public, acting, dressing or in any way trying to intimidate or portray yourself as a criminal then checking you for a weapon is not unreasonable. If you are in public acting high then checking you for drugs is not unreasonable. And seeing as how I do not see these activities as unreasonable I do not see it as a violation of the 4th amendment.

Look at the number they point out in the article. 1.9% of people searched had weapons. that is almost 1 in 50. Getting those guns off the streets is a great step in the right direction and I applaud this effort.

Thunder · Jun 21, 2012

muciti said:
I do not have issue with this policy being in place. It is not a violation of the 4th amendment at all. The 4th amendment reads

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

82% of hundreds of thousands of people being stopped, questioned, and searched.......being TOTALLY innocent....doesn't sound like a problem to you?

if I was a black or Hispanic and lived in NYC, I would feel like I lived in a racist police-state.

Kreton · Jun 21, 2012

Thunder said:
82% of hundreds of thousands of people being stopped, questioned, and searched.......being TOTALLY innocent....doesn't sound like a problem to you?

if I was a black or Hispanic and lived in NYC, I would feel like I lived in a racist police-state.

No it doesnt. Guilty or not they gave a police officer reason to believe they were doing something or reason to believe they had a weapon or something. If you dont want to be treated like a criminal dont act like one or portray yourself as one. Pretty simple concept if you ask me.

Thunder · Jun 21, 2012

muciti said:
No it doesnt. Guilty or not they gave a police officer reason to believe they were doing something or reason to believe they had a weapon or something. If you dont want to be treated like a criminal dont act like one or portray yourself as one. Pretty simple concept if you ask me.

if they were acting like a criminal, how come 82% of the time they were actually doing nothing wrong?

maybe the NYPD needs to change their definition of "acting like a criminal" from "looking young, black/Hispanic, male", to something a little more intelligent.

Thousands march against NYC’s controversial ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy

Do you agree with NYs stop and frisk policy?

I agree with the policy.

I agree in principal but the policy needs refinement.

I disagree with this policy.

potato

Jerry

Sarcogito

Tigger

jamesrage

jamesrage

Tigger

jamesrage

Tigger

Thunder

jamesrage

Tigger

jamesrage

Tigger

Thunder

jamesrage

Bob Blaylock

Electrician

Tigger

Bob Blaylock

Electrician

Tigger

Kreton

Doesn't know

Thunder

Kreton

Doesn't know

Thunder