Stop & Frisk - Legitimate Technique Or Violation Of Rights

longview said:

I generally support Law enforcement, but Stop & Frisk sounds like an over reach, even if was applied without racial bias.

Click to expand...

so if you are visiting NYC and the metro police are checking bags because they have a terror alert, you are going to what?

1. give them a hard time
2. let them look through your backpack

i dunno if stop and frisk is a good thing or not....

i have been through check points for dui/dwi, and i have flown so many times....and been randomly pulled out for pat downs

neither thing bothers me....i know that the basic reason is they are trying to catch drunk drivers, or terrorists trying to get on airplanes

if they are stopping more of one race, or more in a particular neighborhood....then i dont know

gdgyva said:

so if you are visiting NYC and the metro police are checking bags because they have a terror alert, you are going to what?

1. give them a hard time
2. let them look through your backpack

i dunno if stop and frisk is a good thing or not....

i have been through check points for dui/dwi, and i have flown so many times....and been randomly pulled out for pat downs

neither thing bothers me....i know that the basic reason is they are trying to catch drunk drivers, or terrorists trying to get on airplanes

if they are stopping more of one race, or more in a particular neighborhood....then i dont know

Click to expand...

I will let them go through my bag, the Police have a job to do,
Me standing on principle, my give them a hard time, but has the very real potential to mess up my day and my vacation.
I may not like it, but out on the street, is not the place to have that discussion.
I do not know weather it was Orwell or Kipling who said,

We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

Click to expand...

It benefits no one to have the rough men think you are the one who wants to bring the public harm.

longview said:

I will let them go through my bag, the Police have a job to do,
Me standing on principle, my give them a hard time, but has the very real potential to mess up my day and my vacation.
I may not like it, but out on the street, is not the place to have that discussion.
I do not know weather it was Orwell or Kipling who said,

It benefits no one to have the rough men think you are the one who wants to bring the public harm.

Click to expand...

i agree....

some are on that wall safeguarding us whether we asked them to, or not

giving them an issue for doing their jobs is just plain crazy in my book

if you dont like a law, fight it....but not on the street, and not with the cops

Patrickt said:

I guess you had to try and fail. Keep thinking that flying is voluntary and walking isn't. Since you didn't read the definition of stop and frisk you can't discuss it.

Click to expand...

Keep spinning what ever lies and stramen you like but the facts wont change. :lol:
TSA =/ = stop and frisk

When you have any facts that change that please let us know, heck when you have ONE fact that changes that let us know LMAO

AGENT J said:

Keep spinning what ever lies and stramen you like but the facts wont change. :lol:
TSA =/ = stop and frisk

When you have any facts that change that please let us know, heck when you have ONE fact that changes that let us know LMAO

Click to expand...

How pitiful. You think you have a fact. Still haven't read the definition of Stop and Frisk, have you?

gdgyva said:

so if you are visiting NYC and the metro police are checking bags because they have a terror alert, you are going to what?

1. give them a hard time
2. let them look through your backpack

i dunno if stop and frisk is a good thing or not....

i have been through check points for dui/dwi, and i have flown so many times....and been randomly pulled out for pat downs

neither thing bothers me....i know that the basic reason is they are trying to catch drunk drivers, or terrorists trying to get on airplanes

if they are stopping more of one race, or more in a particular neighborhood....then i dont know

Click to expand...

The stop and frisk laws that have existed required reasonable suspicion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion before you were stop and frisked.
Its not just a stop anyone and everyone policy.
Now I know there are circumstances where it isn't hard to fabricate a reasonable suspicion but that's the case everywhere.

Against it. There has to be probable cause. Past criminal history is not probable cause. The police officer having a "feeling" isn't probable cause.

Probable cause is material evidence to support suspicion of criminal activity. No evidence? Then too bad, you don't get to search someone.

People who support this kind of infringement of personal liberty don't realize that their support leads to the erosion of freedoms in general for everyone. You give law enforcement an inch and they take a mile. It's hard for the People to preserve their rights but it's easy for the State to keep every inch of power grab they take.

It's getting to the point where if a person denies an unreasonable search they are being arrested for obstruction. Our country is being threatened from within and it's polemic morons who are to blame.

Patrickt said:

How pitiful. You think you have a fact. Still haven't read the definition of Stop and Frisk, have you?

Click to expand...

And another dodge, thats what I thought LMAO
Facts:
TSA =/= stop and frisk

AGAIN, when you have ONE single FACT that prove otherwise please let us know
opcorn2:

Patrickt said:

How pitiful. You think you have a fact. Still haven't read the definition of Stop and Frisk, have you?

Click to expand...

Actually, Agent J is correct.

"Stop and Frisk" doesn't refer to airport searches (which are Constitutional). It doesn't refer to your ordinary "Terry Stop" -- police having a reasonable suspicion to stop, question and pat down (also Constitutional).

"Stop and Frisk" refers to a specific police policy. The officers weren't stopping people in connection with a specific crime. Rather, the department targets specific neighborhoods and searches people based on what turned out to be flimsy pretexts (like "furtive movement" or "suspicious bulge"), which were really thin excuses to search young black and Hispanic men, who were (surprise!) searched disproportionate to their population and crime rates. Officers typically had unofficial quotas as well.

The NYPD searched around 4.4 million people between 2002 and 2014. Almost 90% of people searched were completely innocent; most of the rest basically got tickets for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Only 2% resulted in convictions.

The court didn't have an issue with Terry Stops. Their issue was with the program as a whole, as among other things, it violated the "reasonable suspicion" standards and was racially biased.

Oh, and the Stop & Frisk policy? It didn't work. It didn't change crime rates in NYC, or Chicago, or other cities where it was used.

Now, it's not a big deal for you to confuse Stop & Frisk with your basic Terry Stop; after all, you aren't running for President, and presumably do not live in NYC. However, Trump does both, and if he's going to recommend using it (again) in other cities, he really ought to know what the **** he's talking about. (And apparently, he doesn't.)

Mr Person said:

It scares and saddens me that in the alleged "land of the free", people will support a program because, "as written", it looks fine. Nothing in writing has ever gone wrong when human beings are in charge of carrying it out <---sarcasm




Funny thing: REALITY IS NOT "AS WRITTEN."

Click to expand...

Not what I said. I said I support it as written. Not that I support it as applied, because it looks fine as written. It can certainly be applied improperly, which I don't support. But don't let my actual point get in the way of your sarcasm.

Dragonfly said:

Is "reasonably suspects" a phrase that is subjective, or objective?

Click to expand...

Objective.

How the F does anyone know if somebody is "about to commit" something?

Absolutely anyone standing in line a bank waiting for the next teller could be "about to commit" a bank robbery.
Any man walking down the street when there are women around could be "about to commit" a sexual assault.

How does a cop know somebody is "about to" break a law?

If I'm walking down the street with my hands in my pockets, who knows if I have a gun/knife in my pocket, or if I'm just protecting my wallet? Or what my intentions are?

Click to expand...

A stop under any of these hypotheticals would obviously be improper. So would stopping somebody because they are black in a wealthy neighborhood. I don't see anything improper, however, in a police officer, for example, stopping someone who sees an officer and throws something into the bushes, or appears to hide something.

What is the counter-proposal? Police can only stop someone on the street if they have actually witnessed them committing a crime? I find it hard to imagine how we could have any effective police force without the police being legally able to question people when they behave suspiciously.

"reasonableness" is one of the most common and well-established standards in the law, for good reason. Reasonable suspicion may sound like nothing compared to, say, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but we are talking about stopping somebody temporarily for questioning, not confining someone to prison, here.

RetiredUSN said:

It's funny how some people want to outlaw stop & frisk while declaring it unconstitutional, but agree to being groped by TSA flunkies just to fly on a jet.

Click to expand...

Not much choice if you want to fly, unless you fly regular then you can be prescreened and make the process quicker.

The stopping .. definitely right and legal ..always has been ..
The frisking .. much less so .. IF we have a legit ''war against crime '' , then I'd think the frisk to be necessary .. but this must be done fairly .. and squarely ..