Finally, Stop and Frisk ends

[BoberFett]

Why is that righties only care about the second amendment? Being searched on the street for no reason would seem to be pretty abusive and unconstitutional practice, yet here are righties supporting it. Big govt anyone?

LOL, another ignorant leftie.

 

[werepossum]

What is a patdown of a Wall Street executive going to result in? Do they carry their ill gotten billions on their person?

Substitute financial audit. Say you're going about your business and the cops come in to your place of business or home to question you and perhaps go through your computer and financial records, because you MIGHT be doing something illegal.

Which means it should be scrapped entirely, not adjusted.

Maybe. The results in reduced crime speak for themselves, so there is significant deterrent value here. If they could maybe reach a 50% or higher arrest rate, it would probably be worth doing, considering that to do so would require homing in on the actual crimes. As it stands, 90% of its victims are innocent. With such a rate it's apparent that no proper probable cause exists. Law enforcement is always going to be wrong sometimes, but being wrong 90% of the time is not acceptable and indicates that sheer dumb luck rather than sharp police work is likely responsible for the 10% successes.

 

[Patranus]

Substitute financial audit. Say you're going about your business and the cops come in to your place of business or home to question you and perhaps go through your computer and financial records, because you MIGHT be doing something illegal.

The IRS doesn't need any justification to audit you.
Happens to millions of Americans per year and yet the left doesn't bitch and moan about it.

 

[BoberFett]

Substitute financial audit. Say you're going about your business and the cops come in to your place of business or home to question you and perhaps go through your computer and financial records, because you MIGHT be doing something illegal.

So what you're saying is that the IRS needs to audit the 99% 99x more than they do the rich, just to keep things equal.

 

[Patranus]

Why is that righties only care about the second amendment? Being searched on the street for no reason would seem to be pretty abusive and unconstitutional practice, yet here are righties supporting it. Big govt anyone?

The searches are based on probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

 

[werepossum]

The IRS doesn't need any justification to audit you.
Happens to millions of Americans per year and yet the left doesn't bitch and moan about it.

The IRS are the left's lay priests; why would they bitch and moan about it?

So what you're saying is that the IRS needs to audit the 99% 99x more than they do the rich, just to keep things equal.

Not necessarily. I'm saying that the IRS, just like the rest of government, should have specific evidence of a crime to subject someone to something counter to our basic Constitutional rights, regardless of neighborhood or skin color or income. Just because white people are disproportionately represented in Wall Street or other financial fraud should not give government license to violate Constitutional protections as long as they target whites between that disproportionate level and our population percentage.

The searches are based on probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

How probable is your cause/how reasonable is your suspicion if you are wrong 90% of the time?

I'm using Eskimospy's numbers here, but if anything that underestimates the rate since surely not everyone arrested is convicted.

 

[marincounty]

LOL, another ignorant leftie.

Another lying rightie.
This is a right wing program, don't try and deny it. Ray Kelly, Giuliani, Bloomberg, police, etc.
The Center for Constitutional Rights initiated the lawsuit against this, a liberal organization.
She(the judge) concluded with “a particularly apt quote,” saying:

“The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight.”

“It is pervasive in policing policies – like stop-and-frisk, and neighborhood watch – regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like burning down a house to rid it of mice.”

She holds top city and NYPD officials liable for constitutional violations. She accused them of acting with willful indifference. She said they turn a blind eye to flagrant racial discrimination.

I think Bloomberg and Ray Kelly and others should go to jail for this.

 

[monovillage]

Why is that righties only care about the second amendment? Being searched on the street for no reason would seem to be pretty abusive and unconstitutional practice, yet here are righties supporting it. Big govt anyone?

Bullshit, plenty of us righties oppose "stop and frisk" and other violations of our 4th Amendment rights.

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.

which btw includes the fucking NSA and which should have nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. Either they have probable cause or they don't, it shouldn't be a color issue.

 

[werepossum]

Another lying rightie.
This is a right wing program, don't try and deny it. Ray Kelly, Giuliani, Bloomberg, police, etc.
The Center for Constitutional Rights initiated the lawsuit against this, a liberal organization.
She(the judge) concluded with “a particularly apt quote,” saying:

“The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight.”

“It is pervasive in policing policies – like stop-and-frisk, and neighborhood watch – regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like burning down a house to rid it of mice.”

She holds top city and NYPD officials liable for constitutional violations. She accused them of acting with willful indifference. She said they turn a blind eye to flagrant racial discrimination.

I think Bloomberg and Ray Kelly and others should go to jail for this.

Bloomberg is about as right wing as Chairman Mao.

Bullshit, plenty of us righties oppose "stop and frisk" and other violations of our 4th Amendment rights.


which btw includes the fucking NSA and which should have nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. Either they have probable cause or they don't, it shouldn't be a color issue.

Well said.

 

[zsdersw]

From what I've heard from having a friend who interns for some high level execs, some pretty awesome cocaine and other high class drugs.

Silly you, thinking that those things matter to our resident stop-and-frisk apologists.

 

[fskimospy]

Bloomberg is about as right wing as Chairman Mao.

Ahh, the old commie routine. Bloomberg is a social liberal and an economic conservative. Comparing him to Mao is stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

Bloomberg is about as right wing as Chairman Mao.

No... I'm pretty sure banning large soda is a plank of the Republican platform...

:sneaky:

 

[monovillage]

Ahh, the old commie routine. Bloomberg is a social liberal and an economic conservative. Comparing him to Mao is stupid.

Ahh, your old pretentious routine............

and everyone knows that banning guns is a plank in the conservative platform.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh, your old pretentious routine............

and everyone knows that banning guns is a plank in the conservative platform.

I was unaware that economic conservatism had anything to say about gun control at all.

 

[HomerJS]

So looking at the percentage of seizures after stops.

Black - .695%
White - 3.7%

Methinks they are targeting the wrong group.

 

[werepossum]

Ahh, the old commie routine. Bloomberg is a social liberal and an economic conservative. Comparing him to Mao is stupid.

Bloomberg presides over an 8.9% top marginal CITY tax rate, wants to ban everything from guns to sodas, spends as much as he is legally allowed to spend, goes after the income of every high earner who spends even a night in NYC, presides over stop and frisk with by your numbers a 90% failure rate - there is NOTHING conservative about this creature, and damned little liberal. Bloomberg is pure proggie.

No... I'm pretty sure banning large soda is a plank of the Republican platform...

:sneaky:

LOL No doubt. 'Cause if there is one issue that defines social conservatism, it is having government involved in what one may have for lunch.

 

[fskimospy]

Bloomberg presides over an 8.9% top marginal CITY tax rate, wants to ban everything from guns to sodas, spends as much as he is legally allowed to spend, goes after the income of every high earner who spends even a night in NYC, presides over stop and frisk with by your numbers a 90% failure rate - there is NOTHING conservative about this creature, and damned little liberal. Bloomberg is pure proggie.

A lot of this is just stream of consciousness ranting so I'm not sure how to rebut a lot of it, but there are some things to clear up.

First, your facts are wrong. The top marginal city tax rate is about 3.6%, not 8.9%. So, you're off by a factor of more than 2.

Second, you appear to have limited knowledge of Bloomberg's economic policies. He's a big budget hawk, which is classic conservatism. He's also a big free trade proponent (classic conservatism), is anti-union (conservative), city expenditures have grown at less than 3% rate over his most recent term, etc. I could go on.

Third, you don't appear to know what progressivism is despite believing in some sort of worldwide progressive conspiracy. Progressivism is primarily a social justice movement in the United States, and the idea that Bloomberg is some sort of social justice crusader is completely, utterly hilarious. I have never once in my entire life met a single person who identified Michael Bloomberg as someone who was overly concerned with social justice. Ever.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
She holds top city and NYPD officials liable for constitutional violations. She accused them of acting with willful indifference. She said they turn a blind eye to flagrant racial discrimination.

I think Bloomberg and Ray Kelly and others should go to jail for this.

I haven't read her opinion. I heard it was very lengthy and just don't have the time now.

I heard an attorney speaking about this on TV. She said 'stop & frisk' was upheld by the SCOTUS. She also said the judge's ruling re: discrimination was faulty because she relied entirely upon statistics and that has been rejected by the SCOTUS.

I found this about the constitutionality of stop & frisk:

n 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk

I.e., seems like some doubt about whether anyone's constitutional rights were being violated.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't read her opinion. I heard it was very lengthy and just don't have the time now.

I heard an attorney speaking about this on TV. She said 'stop & frisk' was upheld by the SCOTUS. She also said the judge's ruling re: discrimination was faulty because she relied entirely upon statistics and that has been rejected by the SCOTUS.

I found this about the constitutionality of stop & frisk:


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk

I.e., seems like some doubt about whether anyone's constitutional rights were being violated.

Fern

Those quotes say that officers have 'some leeway to act'. Her opinion was that the NYPD's policies were not within that leeway. The last quote states that probable cause is not absolutely required, but certainly you don't think that means that police officers can literally walk around frisking the entire population without any reason whatsoever, right? If you do agree with that, then clearly there are limits to this leeway.

I'm also not sure what you mean about statistics being rejected by SCOTUS? SCOTUS does not reject statistics generally at all, and they have never seen the numbers from this case nor any similar set of numbers that I am aware of.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I'm also not sure what you mean about statistics being rejected by SCOTUS? SCOTUS does not reject statistics generally at all, and they have never seen the numbers from this case nor any similar set of numbers that I am aware of.

You missed a key word - "entirely" - in my post.

No one is saying the SCOTUS rejects statistics, just that a determination based only or entirely upon statistics has not been upheld.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

Every time I fly I get stopped and frisked. I need a sympathetic judge. The judge that made this decision undoubtedly lives in very upscale community far removed from the grit of the streets. If this ruling increases the crime rate in NYC, it more than likely will only lead to more job security for her. But I bet she isn't well-heeled enough to fly private jet. I'm thinking I've got a chance.

 

[bradley]

How probable is your cause/how reasonable is your suspicion if you are wrong 90% of the time?

The case should be argued on this point after it reaches the Supreme Court. Though the probable cause of guilt by association being a NYC black or Latino is correct close to 90% of the time. lol

 

[NoStateofMind]

Every time I fly I get stopped and frisked. I need a sympathetic judge. The judge that made this decision undoubtedly lives in very upscale community far removed from the grit of the streets. If this ruling increases the crime rate in NYC, it more than likely will only lead to more job security for her. But I bet she isn't well-heeled enough to fly private jet. I'm thinking I've got a chance.

Would you care to define "crime"? Most "law-breakers" are of the non-violent victimless "crimes".