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.

 

Stop and Frisk in Chicago - an idea

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I would still say that it amounts to the police engaging in extraconstitutional thuggery. Randomly rolling up on a citizen and initiating a search is no different than specifically targeting a citizen for a search without evidence preceeding cause for the search.




What about DUI checkpoints, those seem to skirt the constitution based on vehicle operation. What if stop and frisk was only at "optional" places like mass transit platforms/entrances?


Dude, I live in PA. If a cop pulls you over for a burnt out turn signal? They can pull you and every passenger out of the car and search everyone! For their safety of course. However if they find you in possession over a traffic infraction even though you were a passenger? MONEY FOR THE STATE!


I dont know what that has to do with my question.




posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
POTUS said recently that a "stop and frisk" policy may help Chicago deal with its ongoing violence. Of course, that statement immediately triggered knee-jerk reactions calling it racial profiling, stereotyping, etc. Even though there is no argument that black on black violence is responsible for the greater majority of deaths and is the biggest threat to the lives of minorities in the inner city, it is unconscionable to even suggest that minorities might be part of the problem.

So I had an idea. Why not take the personal preference out of the equation and let the numbers do the talking?

Keep it racially unbiased until the results demand otherwise. Suppose the CPD was to start off with 1,000 stop and frisk checks divided equally among the four most prevalent racial groups in the city: white, black, hispanic, asian. (* see below) If stop and frisk of white people found 50 illegal guns but stop and frisk of black people found 150 illegal guns you now have a statistical reason to target three times as many black people as white people. After all, the goal is not to inconvenience everyone equally, its to find illegal weapons and get them off the streets. It makes sense to focus where the greatest concentrations of these illegal weapons are to be found, target the people most likely to be carrying them. If that turns out to be white people, then there is your answer. Or if it turns out to be black people, there is your answer. Whomever it is, that is where the CPD should be looking the hardest. Once every quarter the 1,000 unit baseline numbers should be taken again to monitor any ratio changes and measure the effectiveness of the program.

You can't call it profiling or stereotyping if the numbers dictate the actions. If your racial group is caught twice as often then you should be checked twice as often. Every three months you have a chance to demonstrate that you are better than that. If you fail to rise to the occasion there is no one to blame but yourselves. At the end of each quarter, or at the very least annually, the results can be published. Transparency is important.

We can't afford to ignore potential solutions to an increasingly severe problem for fear of being politically incorrect. I say screw being PC and start saving some lives instead. If they live long enough, you can apologize for hurting their feelings later...



* If desired, those checks can be adjusted per capita racially and still be considered fair and unbiased. Asians represent 5% of the population as opposed to 45% for white people. 250 stop and frisks each is a much higher percentage of Asians than whites. (its an option to consider)

note: I did not cite references to racial percentages, rate of incident of various crimes, etc. The numbers change all the time. The goal here is to suggest a plan of implementation that will always be fair - regardless of the percentages or rate of incident because the response of the program is tied directly to the actual percentages themselves.

Like my grandfather used to say, "If raccoons are getting in your garbage chasing off alley cats won't solve your problem."


After reading all your OP and all the responses thus far, I can say that IMO “stop and frisk” is stupid and rarely works. I don’t mind check points as they have probably saved more lives that stopping anyone a cop pleases. I definitely don’t want guns banned.

Pretty much I love my rights and I’ll be damned if they get violated in anyway.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You know what, I am sorry I said anything.



I apologize for the wasted bandwidth.


its fine

im sure a bunch of people will rush to agree with you and give you that electronic pat on the back for the next one


If people agree with me its probably because I said something they agree with. At least I am trying to say something that might actually have a purpose. What purpose did anything you said in this thread have? You did nothing but feed your desire to be heard.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

It doesn't matter where it is. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional and I believe eventually they will be found to be so at the federal level.

Stop and frisk as a practice may not be unconstitutional, but the targeting of certain groups in certain areas is. That's what was ruled unconstitutional in New York.

It is an ethically dubious practice open to a lot of abuse. I don't want the cops running around black neighborhoods pushing kids up against the wall just to see what they catch. That's not a good way to deal with people, in my opinion. The force approach only takes you so far. The problems in these neighborhoods are more far-reaching than we give consideration for. But they are not insurmountable.

This is not the policy to pursue. Certainly increasing police presence would take things indoors and make targeting the main criminals easier. But if you're out there busting every kid with a dime bag in his pocket you're going to do little to serve that community. It helps nobody if the criminals go somewhere else.

There's also a pretty strict no snitch policy in these areas. Breaking that rule can get you killed, so good luck with the investigation. That takes trust, but since you've (figuratively) busted every young kid in the hood with something minor, that trust is gone. Thanks stop-and-frisk!




posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk has been proven to be a terrible policy in NYC so I doubt it would be much of an improvement in Chicago and just because Trump thinks it's a good idea is all the more reason to stay the hell away from it.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
POTUS said recently that a "stop and frisk" policy may help Chicago deal with its ongoing violence. Of course, that statement immediately triggered knee-jerk reactions calling it racial profiling, stereotyping, etc. Even though there is no argument that black on black violence is responsible for the greater majority of deaths and is the biggest threat to the lives of minorities in the inner city, it is unconscionable to even suggest that minorities might be part of the problem.

So I had an idea. Why not take the personal preference out of the equation and let the numbers do the talking?

Keep it racially unbiased until the results demand otherwise. Suppose the CPD was to start off with 1,000 stop and frisk checks divided equally among the four most prevalent racial groups in the city: white, black, hispanic, asian. (* see below) If stop and frisk of white people found 50 illegal guns but stop and frisk of black people found 150 illegal guns you now have a statistical reason to target three times as many black people as white people. After all, the goal is not to inconvenience everyone equally, its to find illegal weapons and get them off the streets. It makes sense to focus where the greatest concentrations of these illegal weapons are to be found, target the people most likely to be carrying them. If that turns out to be white people, then there is your answer. Or if it turns out to be black people, there is your answer. Whomever it is, that is where the CPD should be looking the hardest. Once every quarter the 1,000 unit baseline numbers should be taken again to monitor any ratio changes and measure the effectiveness of the program.

You can't call it profiling or stereotyping if the numbers dictate the actions. If your racial group is caught twice as often then you should be checked twice as often. Every three months you have a chance to demonstrate that you are better than that. If you fail to rise to the occasion there is no one to blame but yourselves. At the end of each quarter, or at the very least annually, the results can be published. Transparency is important.

We can't afford to ignore potential solutions to an increasingly severe problem for fear of being politically incorrect. I say screw being PC and start saving some lives instead. If they live long enough, you can apologize for hurting their feelings later...



* If desired, those checks can be adjusted per capita racially and still be considered fair and unbiased. Asians represent 5% of the population as opposed to 45% for white people. 250 stop and frisks each is a much higher percentage of Asians than whites. (its an option to consider)

note: I did not cite references to racial percentages, rate of incident of various crimes, etc. The numbers change all the time. The goal here is to suggest a plan of implementation that will always be fair - regardless of the percentages or rate of incident because the response of the program is tied directly to the actual percentages themselves.

Like my grandfather used to say, "If raccoons are getting in your garbage chasing off alley cats won't solve your problem."


After reading all your OP and all the responses thus far, I can say that IMO “stop and frisk” is stupid and rarely works. I don’t mind check points as they have probably saved more lives that stopping anyone a cop pleases. I definitely don’t want guns banned.

Pretty much I love my rights and I’ll be damned if they get violated in anyway.


I don't want my rights violated either, which is why I made this suggestion. With the number of people carrying illegal weapons and using them indiscriminately in Chicago we are heading toward a complete ban of firearms at some point. Some smaller cities near Chicago are already trying to implement the first stages of these laws. Deerfield just passed legislation banning assault weapons. They further identified assault weapons as: assault rifles, rifles with high capacity magazines, handguns with high capacity magazines, shotguns with a barrel feed, etc. They have also turned the talking point to "high velocity" weapons. What exactly is that? They will tell us when the time comes. Even if there was a gun ban in Chicago there would be no way to confirm if anyone was following it without checking so it is disingenuous to think the stop and frisk won't happen sooner or later. I would rather do it while I still have some rights than after they have all been taken away.

I am 100% behind the Constitution. Not 99.9, 100. That is why it bothers the hell out of me that I get treated like a criminal every time I want to fly somewhere. Or go to a concert or a sporting event. Or enter a government building. I get x-rayed, frisked, felt up, patted down, searched, sniffed, scrutinized and inspected. And I am sick of it. Saying stop and frisk is unconstitutional is either dead wrong or pointless because it happens every single day.

So if its happening already, lets use it in a way that gives us a chance at stopping some of the violence running rampant in Chicago. I don't believe for an instant that this will solve the problem. But I do believe that the possibility of being checked randomly might have an affect on who carries an illegal weapon, when, and where. And it might get a few of these weapons off the street, which is what we need to do. Everyone complains about the problem but then they shoot down any attempt to solve it. I am pretty sick of that too.

You cant make these crimes any more illegal than they already are. Even if you could, what good would it do if you cant enforce those laws? At some point we have to acknowledge that telling people to be nice isn't working. We need to get the illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals without infringing upon the 2A rights of the innocent. Stop and frisk will do that.

What percentage of people who get on airplanes are innocent but get checked anyway? What percentage of people who go to concerts or sporting events are innocent but get checked anyway? What percentage of people driving down the street but get stopped at a sobriety checkpoint are innocent but get stopped anyway? This is not new. Not by a long shot. If this is acceptable then use it where it might do some good.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

It's a tough predicament for sure.

Not being a citizen of one of the megacities it makes judgement a bit harder.

In a way, these dense urban areas of intensified crime are in themselves, countries unto themselves. Participation can be viewed as optional. I'm all for personal liberty and the constitution but there are just a few(half dozen) areas within this vast country that equate to 3rd world war zones. Areas that equal some of the worst in the world.

I'm within a 30 minute drive of an area, that relatively to my area, is a middle eastern hotbed of terror.

This is a vast country, that needs to be recognized on both extremes. I'm certainly not for circumventing the constitution, but for the law abiding citizens of these areas do they reallly have any of the benefits of the greatest nation in the world. Or are they in some sort of pocketed limbo, being in the greatest country while simultaneously suffering the horrors of a third world war zone where prospects of a better life are but a very distant memory.

In effect, these are post apocalyptic megacities. It seems in a way some concessions need to be made. If the responsibility is taken away from the citizens via intense gun control, and overt excessive government reliance, then the government needs to step up harder. Or relinquish control back to the people.

For context, I am drunk, on very strong Vulcan wine. And I'm a true American awaiting collapse and survival of the fittest. But if people want to occupy these urban hellholes devoid of freedom, why protest the heavy hand of the government?



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I definitely see your point even if I don’t like the idea of it. I’ve never been to Chicago so I don’t have any first hand experience of the low income neighborhoods. So ya maybe it will work sometimes and that isn’t such a bad thing as long as a life is saved and one less illegal firearm on the streets. But it does start a dangerous precedent of discrimination and social unrest between those that live in those areas and law enforcement. But then again it may not.

Still a great thread and is something that is always good for discussion.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

Wow, rereading that I'm obviously jammed, but # it I'm not editing my grammar or spelling. Its stream of conciousness garbage. Like TST always used to post before he got on the wagon.

Love you TST. Keep moving right. You'll figure it out someday.

Hashtag, post deleted for toc or some #. I knew I was being shadow banded here. Even with all the flashlights I have they can still find a shadow, to ban.

That whole ski Walker ranch crap was just a smokescreen to silence me.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   
TSA checkpoints.

Mobil detector scanners.

Chip & Scan stations.

Injectable RFID microbots.

🔦👥



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
TSA checkpoints.

Mobil detector scanners.

Chip & Scan stations.

Injectable RFID microbots.

🔦👥


Your post is just an incomprehensible bunch of nonsense without the required "vaoing hot chick" you use as a period, or exclamation point, these days.

Please edit accordingly.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
There is no need to stop and frisk...

The police already know who about 80% of the shooters and victims are. Chicago PD literally has a database that is supposedly pretty accurate in predicting someone being shot or shooting. About 80% of the shootings are gang related, so it is really just targeting the known gangbangers. Make it really hard for them to function.

Reminds me of this scene in Game of Thrones. Bronn is in charge of the Gold Cloaks (basically the police).

Varys asks him how he lowered the amount of thievery. Bronn responds they just rounded up the known thieves! Now all they have to worry about are the unknown ones.


edit on 9-10-2018 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional!

That is all that needs to be said.

P



Tell that to the TSA next time you try to fly somewhere...


is walking through the airport about to get on a plane the same thing as walking down the sidewalk?

im not sure here



It may or may not be. But the thing is, there are a whole lot of people getting killed here. If saving lives is the goal does it matter if its on an airplane or an inner city neighborhood? Like I said, it makes sense to target your efforts where they will do the most good.

No one wants to get stopped for no reason. But every year I have to deal with sobriety checkpoints. I have to deal with police officers standing in between lanes at stop lights slapping post-it notes on cars where people don't have their seatbelts fastened. People are stopped for no reason all the time. Why not do it for something that might actually save some innocent lives?


So we should just give up our rights for "security". Just let cops harass people at will just because they feel like it. How many lives have police officers ruined by planting evidence on people they don't like. I will never be for allowing law enforcement to "stop and frisk" people.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Looks like its being implemented in Chicago already.

Photo: twitter.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
www.nyclu.org...


In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times. 80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).



In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times. 140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).



In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times. 278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).



In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times. 352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).



In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times. 457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).


So these stops caught 10 to 18% of bad people? I guess it's all how you look at numbers.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
You can't ask for papers and you can't just stop and frisk.... end of story...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Driving and flying are privileges, not rights. Walking down the street unmolested is a right.

Say someone parks and is walking to a job interview and the police stop and frisk the individual, causing them to be late and not get the job.

Possible legitimate lawsuit.

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional and illegal.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil


So these stops caught 10 to 18% of bad people? I guess it's all how you look at numbers.




i guess it is how you look at the numbers.
i guess it is also what you consider a bad person.

you assume not totally innocent means bad.

15% of those 18% could have had a small amount of grass on them.
not totally innocent but surely not what i would call bad.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Quote the president on saying this....


I won’t edit out my post, but indeed Trump did support stop and frisk. Stupid move Trump. Absolutely stupid move.
edit on 10/10/2018 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk doesn't make any sense to me as far as Chicago is concerned. The daily killings happen on Chicago's Southside suburbs, not in the Downtown area. The cops aren't doing foot patrols through those streets like they might be doing in the CBD. Stop n'Frisk only makes sense where you have foot patrols.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join