It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chicago police OK independent stop-and-frisk evaluations

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Looks like Chicago is "agreeing" to some kind of independent "evaluation" about their stop & frisk policies.

There is an open lawsuit involving that very issue.

It's about time eh.

Chicago is "on probation"




The Chicago Police Department will allow independent evaluations of its stop-and-frisk procedures that critics say target blacks under an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union announced Friday, as police across the United States face scrutiny about how they treat minorities.

The agreement that calls for increased public disclosure and more officer training follows a scathing March 2015 report from the ACLU of Illinois that found Chicago officers disproportionately target blacks and other racial minorities in hundreds of thousands of stop, question and frisk encounters.

"This unprecedented agreement with the ACLU is a demonstration of CPD's commitment to fairness, respect, transparency," Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said.


Chicago police OK independent stop-and-frisk evaluations





posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Stop and frisk is completely against our Constitution (4th Amendment).

The fact that it appears police use it to target certain demographics more than others is unfortunate, but the heart of the matter is that stop and frisk is so completely against what our Constitution says... This is what the ACLU's main argument should be.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: charolais

Crime was significantly lower in NYC when stop and frisk was around.

This past weekend there were about 30 shootings in Brooklyn alone.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: charolais

US 4th Amendment: (bold mine)


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.


I don't get what's so complicated about this statement that "stop and frisk" was even considered good police work. It seems pretty unreasonable to me to be stopped and frisked just "because". If I match a criminals description then fine, that's reasonable. Frisking someone because you're bored or they "may" have committed a crime is totally unreasonable.

Also, have word's definitions changed recently? Shall not be violated, shall not be infringed, etc are pretty powerful and succinct statements. Who thought just a little violation would be ok in the first place?



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mikeone718

That's nice but it doesn't take away from the fact that we have a right to unreasonable and warrant-less searches & seizures. And that we are free to move about.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: charolais

US 4th Amendment: (bold mine)


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.


I don't get what's so complicated about this statement that "stop and frisk" was even considered good police work. It seems pretty unreasonable to me to be stopped and frisked just "because". If I match a criminals description then fine, that's reasonable. Frisking someone because you're bored or they "may" have committed a crime is totally unreasonable.

Also, have word's definitions changed recently? Shall not be violated, shall not be infringed, etc are pretty powerful and succinct statements. Who thought just a little violation would be ok in the first place?


Thank you Thov420



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, harassing people without cause bothers me. On the other hand, I know what kind of carnage goes on in many of these neighborhoods. Despite politically correct sensibilities, it is pretty easy to spot the thugs and those likely to be engaging in certain criminal behavior.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I agree to a point but then I'm reminded of Blackstone's formulation:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikeone718
a reply to: charolais

Crime was significantly lower in NYC when stop and frisk was around.

This past weekend there were about 30 shootings in Brooklyn alone.


But...but, I thought NY was a gun free zone! Where's Bloomberg?



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, harassing people without cause bothers me. On the other hand, I know what kind of carnage goes on in many of these neighborhoods. Despite politically correct sensibilities, it is pretty easy to spot the thugs and those likely to be engaging in certain criminal behavior.


By that logic, it appears that only black people would be the "easy to spot" being referenced here. At least, that is what the ACLU statistics show.

And that's a problem.

This story sounds like they are trying to get a positive press cycle or two after their little rendition camp got exposed.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Edumakated
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, harassing people without cause bothers me. On the other hand, I know what kind of carnage goes on in many of these neighborhoods. Despite politically correct sensibilities, it is pretty easy to spot the thugs and those likely to be engaging in certain criminal behavior.


By that logic, it appears that only black people would be the "easy to spot" being referenced here. At least, that is what the ACLU statistics show.

And that's a problem.

This story sounds like they are trying to get a positive press cycle or two after their little rendition camp got exposed.


In Chicago, it is black folks who are mostly the victims and perpetrators of the day to day violence. Of the 400+ murders that occur annually, around 350 or so are black. Maybe 25 Hispanics and the other 25 unidentifiable. In addition, the bulk of those murders occur in a very specific neighborhoods. In addition, some 80% are gang related.

If the goal is to reduce violent crime, it makes zero sense to stop little old white ladies. You would focus specifically on black males between 15 - 25 years old in certain neighborhoods.

Look, I am a black male and hate stereotypes just as much as the next man. But this doesn't change the reality of the situation. Like I said, I have mixed feelings. No one should be subject to unlawful search, but at the same time when it basically Mogadishu in some parts of the City, something has to be done.

Everyone with two brain cells knows the perpetrators fit a certain profile and it goes well beyond just being black.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

And this is why i don't live in a city.

I just don't think any other human is competent to protect me and my family.

On a related note: the easiest way to change the operation of urban areas is to change the way you handle drug offenses. Treat them medically rather than criminally, cut the legs out from under the pushers. They operate in those areas because there is a customer base. They are the biggest obstacle to inner city mobility. They are wealth consolidators. In a population without much wealth...that is really something.
edit on 8/7/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: charolais

Well if the shoe fits.... A certain demographic is targeted and crime stats drop... Then I suppose it's no longer a coincidence right?

Or just lots of luck.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mikeone718
Yeah imagine that. Those people have the unfortunate position of being born both poor and black.

Racial profiling creates self fulfilling prophecy. If you never look under the bed for your keys, you will never find the keys under the bed.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Quick thought, mikeone probably knows the answer to this, but was stop and frisk banned in NYC? Did the ACLU bring a suit there as well?



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
Quick thought, mikeone probably knows the answer to this, but was stop and frisk banned in NYC? Did the ACLU bring a suit there as well?


Possible



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

We no longer have stop and frisk in NYC. As I said before, last weekend there were several dozen shootings in *certain* areas here.

I always like to add - I'm not white.

I'll also add a link, you know, to back up my claims.

Linky
edit on 7-8-2015 by mikeone718 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Thank you mike and xuen, good to know.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join