• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump proposes Nationwide Stop & Frisk

disneydude said:
That is just right-wing scare propoganda. They always say the Guvment is coming after yer guns. They said the same thing about Obama. Everyone still has their guns. Surprised?
Click to expand...

Thanks to a republican congress. The democrats tried to pass a law that allowed people to be stripped of their rights on suspicion and no due process. We can start a thread on all the attempts made by Obama and the Clinton's to restrict or take away our rights.
 
Orly? said:
Yep... Frisk away.. Profile the **** out of them too.. Make police profiling mandatory.. Profile all races..
Click to expand...
:doh
Meanwhile. Local Trump supporters embrace unconstitutional, and an ineffective way of policing and call for open racial profiling and then call everyone else racists...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh
Meanwhile. Local Trump supporters embrace unconstitutional, and an ineffective way of policing and call for open racial profiling and then call everyone else racists...
Click to expand...

I agree that it is not Constitutional and like you I do not support it, however, the facts show that it is in fact very effective in reducing violent crime - see my post 128 above - as are most "police state" tactics like those imposed in communist/socialist/authoritarian states, which is further irony in that those that support Trump proclaim themselves as lovers of liberty.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Here's just one example of research data on Stop and Frisk from 2012 when NYC was debating the issue: Does stop and frisk reduce crime / Stop and frisk has lowered crime in other cities | NY Times

But again, even though I believe from the evidence that it is very effective in reducing violent crime, I do not feel that Stop and Frisk is Constitutional.
Click to expand...

"However, New York City's "stop-and frisk" policy was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin in 2013.
Scheindlin ruled that this type of policing violated people's right to protection under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution.

According to The Guardian​, Scheindlin wrote in her ruling: "In practice, the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling." Then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed the ruling, but the current mayor, Bill DeBlasio, dropped the appeal.

NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said in June 2015: "Let’s get over it. SQF (Stop, Question and Frisk) is not a significant factor in the crime rate of this city,"
According to Bratton, there were 685,000 police stops in 2011, while rapes, assaults and grand larcenies went up.

Bratton said that in 2014 there were 48,000 police stops, while murders, rapes and other violent crimes significantly dropped, as did the overall crime rate by 4.5 percent.
"Last year, when we had the lowest number of [stop-and-frisks], we had much less crime, the lowest number of homicides in the recorded history of the department," Bratton added."

Trump Calls For Unconstitutional Stop-And-Frisk
 
Beaudreaux said:
Here's just one example of research data on Stop and Frisk from 2012 when NYC was debating the issue: Does stop and frisk reduce crime / Stop and frisk has lowered crime in other cities | NY Times

But again, even though I believe from the evidence that it is very effective in reducing violent crime, I do not feel that Stop and Frisk is Constitutional.
Click to expand...


You cite " a paid consultant for the New York Police Department in litigation involving stop and frisk." It is to laugh. Yeah, that's an objective source.


Nonetheless - how about you find something a little bit more up to date? No problem. Handled that for you. See: #130.
 
And in a joyous Oh Trump! moment, today, the Orange King walked it back and declared...meh, I only meant Chicago.

heh.
 
Paperview said:
You cite " a paid consultant for the New York Police Department in litigation involving stop and frisk." It is to laugh. Yeah, that's an objective source.


Nonetheless - how about you find something a little bit more up to date? No problem. Handled that for you. See: #130.
Click to expand...

If I were trying to defend an unconstitutional policy, I may do a lot more research to defend it and argue with you, but I'm not, so I won't. Sorry.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I think they already do that for the safety of the officer and the person being detained or questioned. I have been asked nicely more than once to be cuffed for both our safety in Houston late at night. I was patted down and after another officer arrived the cuffs were removed and the officer thanked me for my cooperation. I don't have a problem if the officer treats you with respect when doing it. We were alone on an open stretch of road late at night. It made perfect sense to me.

Now to just stop and frisk people for no reason should be illegal. I think there needs to be a reason for stopping someone.
Click to expand...
What if it's 2:30AM on a Saturday or Sunday morning? There's no justification for stopping cars to determine who's drunk driving? What about at airports and federal buildings? There's no justification for body scans and metal detectors to determine if someone has a weapon? What about strangers on a grade school or college campus? No justification to prevent said strangers from entering? What about students potentially bringing weapons to schools? There's no need to determine if they are carrying weapons or even mentioning a type of weapon? What if there is an escaped convict, a child abducted, or a heinous crime that has just been committed close by? There's no need to stop and frisk????

Don't get me started on the 'stop and frisk' (and removal) of personal guns if a democratically controlled congress has its way.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Why do you think this is relevant to an unconstitutional proposal
Click to expand...

Because the police already can search your person or vehicle, if theres probable cause. Stop and frisk is just a tool that's used to lower crime in areas that are out of control.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I agree that it is not Constitutional and like you I do not support it, however, the facts show that it is in fact very effective in reducing violent crime - see my post 128 above - as are most "police state" tactics like those imposed in communist/socialist/authoritarian states, which is further irony in that those that support Trump proclaim themselves as lovers of liberty.
Click to expand...

Socialism really has nothing at all to do with stop and frisk.

But anyways in regards to your comment on its effectiveness:
"A new report released by the New York attorney general’s office on Thursday highlights just how ineffective New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” policy, which randomly targeted millions of minority residents, has been. According to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Over the past decade more than 4 million New Yorkers have been targeted under the program. The vast majority of those stops occurred in mostly poor, mostly minority neighborhoods. Between 2004 and 2012, 4.4 million people were stopped. A weapon was found in less than 1% of the cases" New analysis shows just how ineffective stop-and-frisk has been | MSNBC

"In 2013, prior to New York effectively ending stop-and-frisk, David Greenberg of New York University found “no evidence that misdemeanor arrests reduced levels of homicide, robbery, or aggravated assaults.” Since the end of stop-and-frisk, crime has remained at historically low rates or even dropped further. In 2015, murder rebounded slightly from its all-time low in 2013, though the first quarter of 2016 was the lowest on record." Stop-and-Frisk: Trump's Bad Idea for Fighting Crime - The Atlantic

2dioqp3.png

Stop and frisk dropping but still ineffective | Prison Policy Initiative

"Schneiderman's study found that 0.3% of the 2.4m stops led to jail sentences of more than 30 days, and 0.1% led to convictions for violent crime. It also found that there had been a “sharp uptick” in litigation costs for the city due to the cost of defending the NYPD from lawsuits." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/stop-and-frisk-new-york-conviction-rate

"Last year, the NYPD stopped and interrogated people 685,724 times, a more than 600 percent increase in street stops since Mayor Bloomberg’s first year in office when there were only 97,296 stops. Nine out of 10 of people stopped were innocent, meaning they were neither arrested nor ticketed. About 87 percent were black or Latino." New NYCLU Report Finds NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Practices Ineffective, Reveals Depth of Racial Disparities | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State

Bottom line is its not effective, and actually undermined how the police was/is viewed in the community.
 
cabse5 said:
What if it's 2:30AM on a Saturday or Sunday morning?
Click to expand...
Being in public at 2AM is not justification for a reasonable suspicion.


There's no justification for stopping cars to determine who's drunk driving?
Click to expand...
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz


What about at airports and federal buildings?
Click to expand...
Special Needs Exception to the 4th Amendment.

Generally speaking: 4th Amendment is not absolute, there are certain circumstances where warrantless searches are acceptable. Typically they need to be minimally invasive and respect privacy rights. E.g. the "backscatter" scanners might be construed as violating those principles.

There is no special exception to the 4th Amendment for people walking down the street in public. Certainly not one based on skin color.


What about students potentially bringing weapons to schools?
Click to expand...
New Jersey vs TLO


Don't get me started on the 'stop and frisk' (and removal) of personal guns if a democratically controlled congress has its way.
Click to expand...
FYI, Democrats are opposed to Stop & Frisk.
 
truthatallcost said:
The New York Civil Liberties Union says Stop and Frisk is ineffective... shocking. They probably think that riots in black neighborhoods are 'protests' too.
Click to expand...
It's not just the NYCLU.

Attorney General of NY:
http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/OAG_REPORT_ON_SQF_PRACTICES_NOV_2013.pdf

A good summary of this week's nonsense, which includes that Chicago had a Stop & Frisk policy that didn't affect crime rates:
Stop-and-Frisk: Trump's Bad Idea for Fighting Crime - The Atlantic
 
Beaudreaux said:
I dispute your "facts" but that doesn't mean I support the program.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you believe years old "data" from a man paid for by the defendants in the case, but dispute the current data and facts by the NYPD Commissioner.

Well, altrighty then.
 
truthatallcost said:
The New York Civil Liberties Union says Stop and Frisk is ineffective... shocking. They probably think that riots in black neighborhoods are 'protests' too.
Click to expand...

Stop and Frisk is a violation of the 4th amendment.
 
truthatallcost said:
The New York Civil Liberties Union says Stop and Frisk is ineffective... shocking. They probably think that riots in black neighborhoods are 'protests' too.
Click to expand...

Blaming the source, eh? Well funny that you only singled out 1 of the 5 sources I offered. But hey, the data is there and is plain sight. Or are you saying the numbers are not correct?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Socialism really has nothing at all to do with stop and frisk.

But anyways in regards to your comment on its effectiveness:
"A new report released by the New York attorney general’s office on Thursday highlights just how ineffective New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” policy, which randomly targeted millions of minority residents, has been. According to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Over the past decade more than 4 million New Yorkers have been targeted under the program. The vast majority of those stops occurred in mostly poor, mostly minority neighborhoods. Between 2004 and 2012, 4.4 million people were stopped. A weapon was found in less than 1% of the cases" New analysis shows just how ineffective stop-and-frisk has been | MSNBC

"In 2013, prior to New York effectively ending stop-and-frisk, David Greenberg of New York University found “no evidence that misdemeanor arrests reduced levels of homicide, robbery, or aggravated assaults.” Since the end of stop-and-frisk, crime has remained at historically low rates or even dropped further. In 2015, murder rebounded slightly from its all-time low in 2013, though the first quarter of 2016 was the lowest on record." Stop-and-Frisk: Trump's Bad Idea for Fighting Crime - The Atlantic

2dioqp3.png

Stop and frisk dropping but still ineffective | Prison Policy Initiative

"Schneiderman's study found that 0.3% of the 2.4m stops led to jail sentences of more than 30 days, and 0.1% led to convictions for violent crime. It also found that there had been a “sharp uptick” in litigation costs for the city due to the cost of defending the NYPD from lawsuits." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/stop-and-frisk-new-york-conviction-rate

"Last year, the NYPD stopped and interrogated people 685,724 times, a more than 600 percent increase in street stops since Mayor Bloomberg’s first year in office when there were only 97,296 stops. Nine out of 10 of people stopped were innocent, meaning they were neither arrested nor ticketed. About 87 percent were black or Latino." New NYCLU Report Finds NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Practices Ineffective, Reveals Depth of Racial Disparities | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State

Bottom line is its not effective, and actually undermined how the police was/is viewed in the community.
Click to expand...

The Civil Liberties Union (ACLU or the NYCLU) is a biased group utilizing biased data, as they always do. However, and once again, I am not defending the use of Stop and Frisk, because I believe it is Un-Constitutional.
 
Visbek said:
Being in public at 2AM is not justification for a reasonable suspicion.



Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz



Special Needs Exception to the 4th Amendment.

Generally speaking: 4th Amendment is not absolute, there are certain circumstances where warrantless searches are acceptable. Typically they need to be minimally invasive and respect privacy rights. E.g. the "backscatter" scanners might be construed as violating those principles.

There is no special exception to the 4th Amendment for people walking down the street in public. Certainly not one based on skin color.



New Jersey vs TLO



FYI, Democrats are opposed to Stop & Frisk.
Click to expand...
You like to cite plenty of court precedents to determine cases. Wait until Trump stacks SCOTUS with originalists of The Constitution and see how those precedents survive.

Sidenote: I've always considered the law to be the least creative profession. I mean, precedents are created and all other decisions - many unrelated - are made from those precedents, originalist or extrapolatory.
 
Paperview said:
Oh, so you believe years old "data" from a man paid for by the defendants in the case, but dispute the current data and facts by the NYPD Commissioner.

Well, altrighty then.
Click to expand...

I believe what the actual data says, not what people choose to manipulate it to mean to meet their political ends, regardless of whether that data defends or condemns something that I either agree with or to not agree with. In this instance, I do not agree with Stop and Frisk and would never agree that it's a reasonable program for any government entity in the US to utilize. Yet, I am also honest enough to see the data for what it is as far as whether the program resulted in lowering violent crime, and the data showing that since it's removal from practice, that violent crime has increased.

I do, however, find this subject a case study in hypocrisy by both sides - many of those that support it claim to be lovers of liberty and freedom, and many of those that are against it (as we see in this thread) are also the ones that argue and fight for a larger government and more government power over our lives. The irony is vivid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom