Stop and Frisk. Do you Support it?

[dmcowen674]

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.

The people are not secure when guns have been outlawed and only the outlaws have guns.

Probable cause is satisfied to check every individual for unlicensed weapon.

 

[davmat787]

gung-ho "freedom" is a just a dumb feel-good slogan.

I am sure all of those fighting and dying in Syria agree with you, that "freedom" is just a dumb feel good slogan. 🙄

If there is one over riding theme to your posts and threads, it is that you expect the state to do whatever it takes, to remove whatever freedoms we enjoy, to legislate whatever new laws you see fit, just to make you feel a little safer.

Guess what? Life has a 100% mortality rate, enjoy yours rather than live in fear all the time.

 

[railer]

If you look at crime stats for NYC, the murder rate is at an all time low. NYC is one of the safest big cities in the US. And that's because random thugs can't run around with illegal guns shooting people dead. As I understand stop and frisk - if you look like a thug and act like a thug, you might get frisked. If you then are found to have an illegal weapon on you, you are going to pay for that. I would imagine the people that do have a problem with s and f (at least on this board) are the ones that don't live anywhere near high crime areas, or if they do, they stay inside and hide behind their keyboards and spout off about their "liberty" being taken away, or some such nonsense, while never actually leaving their homes.

I generally don't have a problem with s and f, when I step back and look at the cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Kadarin]

The members of the court that determined this was constitutional should be tried and executed for treason.

 

[MrMuppet]

"Frisk" means "in good health" in Swedish, surely stop and frisk must be a good thing?

 

[a777pilot]

Isn't there an old quote about giving up a little freedom for a little safety but then having neither?

This is just stupid.

What's next? The monitoring of all conversations to check that we are not saying something we should not?

 

[MrMuppet]

There are accusations of racism in its application, and there are arguments that it makes for safer streets.

I'm not so sure "racism" is the right word.

Racial profiling is no different from sexual profiling and that's hardly "sexist". Racial profiling would be racialist, perhaps?

 

[blankslate]

If NYC/FTC/SEC will do stop and frisks of all middle age white guys coming out of Wall Street financial firms. Examine brief cases, computer, check their email. We know this is the profile of people who have caused losses of untold billions to our economy. Think that'll happen??

Nope. But it should happen.

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

/thread

 

[micrometers]

The members of the court that determined this was constitutional should be tried and executed for treason.

As usual lots of grandstanding without much interest in the facts.

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

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't believe anyone should be searched unless there's probable cause to think they've done something illegal and searching them is needed.

This random stop and search stuff is completely unamerican and just plain wrong :thumbsdown:

Opponents of the policy complain about the policy because of racism or other statistical disparities, I think it's completely wrong no matter how it's done. Free of racism or any other prejudicial execution, it's still wrong IMO.

 

[micrometers]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/crime_way_up_after_stop_frisk_drop_QT0eIUd3YD6lp9Y4vCYf4I

in NYC, stop and frisk down 34%, crime up 12%

 

[alzan]

I'd rather that people had better knowledge of their civil and constitutional rights so that when stopped they could look the officer in the eyes and tell the officers' exactly which rights the officers are in danger of abridging.

Maybe then the police would learn something about protecting everyone's constitutional rights.

 

[bradley]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/crime_way_up_after_stop_frisk_drop_QT0eIUd3YD6lp9Y4vCYf4I

in NYC, stop and frisk down 34%, crime up 12%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/rubber-gun-cops-rake-in-c_n_838356.html
The city's Independent Budget Office projected yesterday that by June 30, 2012, the Police Department will have shrunk to 34,413 uniformed personnel, a record low since the 34,825 that were on the force on that same date 20 years ago when crime rates in the city were near epic highs.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/faq/faq_police.shtml
How many Police Officers are there in the NYPD?
The NYPD's current uniformed strength is approximately 34,500.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

If you look at crime stats for NYC, the murder rate is at an all time low. NYC is one of the safest big cities in the US. And that's because random thugs can't run around with illegal guns shooting people dead. As I understand stop and frisk - if you look like a thug and act like a thug, you might get frisked. If you then are found to have an illegal weapon on you, you are going to pay for that. I would imagine the people that do have a problem with s and f (at least on this board) are the ones that don't live anywhere near high crime areas, or if they do, they stay inside and hide behind their keyboards and spout off about their "liberty" being taken away, or some such nonsense, while never actually leaving their homes.

I generally don't have a problem with s and f, when I step back and look at the cost/benefit analysis.

First, I honestly don't care if it's effective or not. It is unconstitutional so any utilitarian based argument is irrelevant unless we are having a discussion about whether or not we should revise the fourth amendment. Second, NYC has implemented a variety of policies over the past 20 years which have resulted in the declining crime rate. There is no reason to give stop and frisk exclusive credit for the positive results.

 

[micrometers]

First, I honestly don't care if it's effective or not. It is unconstitutional so any utilitarian based argument is irrelevant unless we are having a discussion about whether or not we should revise the fourth amendment. Second, NYC has implemented a variety of policies over the past 20 years which have resulted in the declining crime rate. There is no reason to give stop and frisk exclusive credit for the positive results.

Did you read the Terry case? A detective saw some men "casing a joint" and decided to search them. He found a gun.

Now, you see a guy "acting suspiciously" around a local business and you're saying that you have no way to stop and search him b/c it woudl violate his rights?

Anyways, the Supreme Court of the USA made it constitutional.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Did you read the Terry case? A detective saw some men "casing a joint" and decided to search them. He found a gun.

Now, you see a guy "acting suspiciously" around a local business and you're saying that you have no way to stop and search him b/c it woudl violate his rights?

Anyways, the Supreme Court of the USA made it constitutional.

There is obviously some grey area around probable cause. It is an open question as to whether the NYPD policies fall within the guidelines established by case-law. The ACLU says (based on NYPD reports) that the hit rate for these stops is about 11%.

 

[micrometers]

There is obviously some grey area around probable cause. It is an open question as to whether the NYPD policies fall within the guidelines established by case-law. The ACLU says (based on NYPD reports) that the hit rate for these stops is about 11%.

That's pretty high. I've heard that arrest rates are actually in the single digits.

Of course that statistic is close to meaningless since criminals adjust their behavior in response to Stop and Frisk.

Meaning they don't carry weapons in public because they know they stand a good chance of being searched. So they leave them at home and the streets become safer.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Did you read the Terry case? A detective saw some men "casing a joint" and decided to search them. He found a gun.

Now, you see a guy "acting suspiciously" around a local business and you're saying that you have no way to stop and search him b/c it woudl violate his rights?

Anyways, the Supreme Court of the USA made it constitutional.

That's pretty high. I've heard that arrest rates are actually in the single digits.

Of course that statistic is close to meaningless since criminals adjust their behavior in response to Stop and Frisk.

Meaning they don't carry weapons in public because they know they stand a good chance of being searched. So they leave them at home and the streets become safer.

You do realize that these two statements are inconsistent? If they are only searching people when they have probable cause, then a criminal casually carrying a gun would have no fear of being searched, and would not change their behavior. However, if they are just randomly searching people then that would be expected to stop casual carry. In other words, it would only work if they were violating the fourth amendment!

 

[micrometers]

You do realize that these two statements are inconsistent? If they are only searching people when they have probable cause, then a criminal casually carrying a gun would have no fear of being searched, and would not change their behavior. However, if they are just randomly searching people then that would be expected to stop casual carry. In other words, it would only work if they were violating the fourth amendment!

Carrying a gun often leads to unique movement patterns. You can sometimes see it through clothing, the bulk of it.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

A lot of people act like the word I bolded isn't there.

Imho, if there is a particular, and significant problem that's being addessed, I can see where it might be applied. I'm not thrilled with it, but I think someone *could* make an argument for it. However, in the case of NYC where crime is at an "all-time low" (I don't have stats; I assume the person above is correct) - I see no justifiable reason for it.

 

[piasabird]

Not.

 

[monovillage]

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.

This, this, this.

 

[micrometers]

This, this, this.

But stop and frisk isn't "unreasonable". It is in response to relative crime levels, and behavior on the streets.

If you're familiar with the East Coast cities in general, crime is a real problem.

 

[monovillage]

But stop and frisk isn't "unreasonable". It is in response to relative crime levels, and behavior on the streets.

If you're familiar with the East Coast cities in general, crime is a real problem.

Sorry, there is no way I will accept that someone walking down a street gives probable cause to the authorities to search them or frisk them. I disagree with Joe on many things, but in this he's 100% right.