Stop and Frisk: Ain't it great!?

[Darwin333]

I want Eminem looking white guys slinking around in bad parts of town to be stopped, harassed, and unconstitutionally fucked with to whatever degree the cops find necessary.

Since the cops, and the cops alone, get to decide who they "unconstitutionally fuck to whatever degree they find necessary" what makes you think they will stop at just "Eminem looking white guys"? They already haven't stuck to that model and there are many a video with them unconstitutionally fucking with your everyday middle class normal American.

So the question is, are you willing to have your own wife subjected to the "unconstitutional fucking" or even yourself? Hell, if half a dozen cops grab your wife and have some "unconstitutional" fun with her in the back of a cop car, so long as the unconsensual gang banging was something they found "necessary" that would be perfectly ok with you?

Why even bother making rules in the first place and why bother with laws when you wish certain groups to be exempt from them? Seems that would solve all the problems, no laws would mean no criminals and no reason for the cops to do any "unconstitutional fucking".

 

[Darwin333]

I'm familiar with the legal standard. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. They have to have something, but not much. Bear in mind that this degree of suspicion only permits a pat down of outer clothing to determine if there are weapons.

Also bear in mind that I was replying to someone who said "stop and frisk" is "unconstitutional." I was correct in pointing out that the practice is sanctioned as constitutional by the SCOTUS. As to whether it is practiced properly in a given case, that of course is another issue entirely.

Oh I had no doubt that you were aware of the bigger specifics of the law, my reply wasn't necessarily aimed directly at you. I saw an opportunity to point out the facts to those less aware or to those who think that the cops have the legal authority to stop and frisk anyone for any (or no) reason.

 

[Geosurface]

Since the cops, and the cops alone, get to decide who they "unconstitutionally fuck to whatever degree they find necessary" what makes you think they will stop at just "Eminem looking white guys"? They already haven't stuck to that model and there are many a video with them unconstitutionally fucking with your everyday middle class normal American.

So the question is, are you willing to have your own wife subjected to the "unconstitutional fucking" or even yourself? Hell, if half a dozen cops grab your wife and have some "unconstitutional" fun with her in the back of a cop car, so long as the unconsensual gang banging was something they found "necessary" that would be perfectly ok with you?

Why even bother making rules in the first place and why bother with laws when you wish certain groups to be exempt from them? Seems that would solve all the problems, no laws would mean no criminals and no reason for the cops to do any "unconstitutional fucking".

Well first off it seems you may be struggling with the difference between fucking with someone and just plain fucking someone.

I'm not advocating some sort of free for all where police can do whatever they please to whomever they please. I'm advocating a reasonable degree of leeway for officers, particularly officers in extremely rough areas.

I'm talking about being realistic and acknowledging that cops can recognize when someone's likely up to no good, and allowing them to stop those people to determine if that's the case.

 

[Darwin333]

Well first off it seems you may be struggling with the difference between fucking with someone and just plain fucking someone.

I'm not advocating some sort of free for all where police can do whatever they please to whomever they please. I'm advocating a reasonable degree of leeway for officers, particularly officers in extremely rough areas.

I'm talking about being realistic and acknowledging that cops can recognize when someone's likely up to no good, and allowing them to stop those people to determine if that's the case.

Again, is said "leeway" leads to them beating the crap out of your wife because they thought they recognized she was up to no good, that would be ok?

You still haven't answered the question, whats the point in putting rules on them in the first place?

 

[Geosurface]

Again, is said "leeway" leads to them beating the crap out of your wife because they thought they recognized she was up to no good, that would be ok?

You still haven't answered the question, whats the point in putting rules on them in the first place?

Rules set the point around which concepts such as "stretching the rules" are formed. So even if rules are stretched, they still serve that purpose.

They act as a reference point.

If a cop pulls someone over and claims they didn't signal a turn, when in fact they did, but the car looks like a thugmobile and the characters inside look shady, and he thinks they may be associated with drug dealing and violence in the area, and wants an excuse to run their names through the system, I don't have a problem with that. The cop is breaking the rule, but he's also being proactive and adapting to the environment he's in.

A cop in a sleepy little town with almost no crime, can afford to play by every rule, to the letter.

A cop in Detroit might need to adapt to the harsh conditions and step up his game. That may sometimes involve stretching the rules. I'm okay with that.

I don't want cops being wildly abusive, but that's not what I saw in this video. I saw what I consider to be cops adapting to their environment. Some areas have a persistent, entrenched and hardened criminal element and they require harsher treatment.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm familiar with the legal standard. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. They have to have something, but not much. Bear in mind that this degree of suspicion only permits a pat down of outer clothing to determine if there are weapons.

Also bear in mind that I was replying to someone who said "stop and frisk" is "unconstitutional." I was correct in pointing out that the practice is sanctioned as constitutional by the SCOTUS. As to whether it is practiced properly in a given case, that of course is another issue entirely.

So which part of the Terry Stop allows threatening law-abiding citizens?

 

[werepossum]

The only thing worse than bad cops is vertical video.

LOL

A bit ironic that you say it's unconstitutional. The entire practice is based on a 1968 SCOTUS ruling saying the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

If you have a problem with the constitutionality of stop and frisk, you should be criticizing the SCOTUS, not the cops.

I tend to agree with the principle of Terry v. Ohio, but when the success rate is less than 10% can their suspicions really be called reasonable?