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.

 

New cards explain NYC street stops by police

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

New cards explain NYC street stops by police


www.salon.com

New York City police have begun handing out small cards telling people why they were stopped and searched on city streets.

It follows a study of so-called "stop-and-frisk" tactics that says officers need to better explain what they're doing.

The cards cite a state code allowing stops by officers if they reasonably think a person may be a suspect. They say "the NYPD regrets any inconvenience" if it wrongly stops someone.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.ny1.com
www.ny1.com
www.nydailynews.com




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Where you aware of this?

I wasn't ...

Apparently NYC cops can "stop &f risk" anyone at any time because they reasonably think they have something to hide.

What is reasonable?



Good luck if you're a minority ...

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the policy and in this case rightfully so.

Under this standard pretty much anyone can be accused of "reasonable" suspicion.

www.salon.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
The best answer to this new earth shattering policy of handing out cards was from a 10th grader ...


"I think that's ridiculous," said Davonne Henry, 16, a 10th-grader who lives in Harlem. "It's not really changing nothing. Like we want the card?" daily news

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 1 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The problem is that police have to be allowed to do their jobs; if you tell them that they can't search anyone for any reason, then a lot of criminals will get away. No, the answer isn't limiting police authority, I think the answer is better police officers. Better screening, better training, and more accountability on the officers for wrongdoing.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
What is reasonable?


Any thing they can reasonably convince you that you you did wrong.

They can find some thing if they want to, just be polite and honest and they might be in return.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
this is getting pretty nuts..

what happens when they give it to a illiterate?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Good advice from a friend of mine(who is a lawyer) is to politely give them your first name nothing else(this is if they just randomly stop you, different if a traffic stop, or you're being stupid). When the questions go beyond that kindly state that you feel you shouldn't answer these questions until an attorney can be made present which are my rights. They'll usually just leave you alone. Only happened to me 1 time in Miami. The officers just told me to have a nice day and let me on my way. They know when they're fishing and the smart ones know when to stop. It's the stupid ones that keep going and escalate the situation that get their deptartments sued for millions.

You always have to excersice your rights or they'll be gone. Most people can talk themselves into trouble by answering enough questions without thinking it through. Cops will bait you if they think they have their suspect even though you may fit the vague description. With their baiting you could answer a question in a way they don't like and boom you've caused yourself hours of grief and a trip to a holding cell while it all get's sorted out(if you're really unlucky).

Know your rights! That's what our ancestors fought for.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Yes but ...


Recent studies by police departments and researchers confirm that police stop racial and ethnic minority citizens more often than whites, relative to their proportions in the population. However, it has been argued stop rates more accurately reflect rates of crimes committed by each ethnic group, or that stop rates reflect elevated rates in specific social areas such as neighborhoods or precincts. Most of the research on stop rates and police-citizen interactions has focused on traffic stops, and analyses of pedestrian stops are rare. In this paper, we analyze data from 175,000 pedestrian stops by the New York Police Department over a fifteen-month period. We disaggregate stops by police precinct, and compare stop rates by racial and ethnic group controlling for previous race-specific arrest rates. We use hierarchical multilevel models to adjust for precinct-level variability, thus directly addressing the question of geographic heterogeneity that arises in the analysis of pedestrian stops. We find that persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites, even after controlling for precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation. abstract


(emphasis mine)

Plus you have to admit, the reasons as described in this new card they are distributing could stop just about anyone for a search.

Having said that, I don't take issue with the police per se, if such is the policy they are within their rights and duties to enforce it. This issue is with the policy and policy makers who will apparently have to defend this in court.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Precisely. And aside from handing out little cards, this has been common in NYC for several years now. No??
I lived in Manhattan from 01-06, and I've been searched a few times, mostly on subway stations. If you're carrying a back-pack, chances are they'll ask you to open it for them.

I was polite, and they were polite in return.

If they were searching homes without warrant and handing out little cards cheerfully saying "sorry for inconvenience" then it's a different story.

I don't see this being a big deal. Especially because it's old news, just with a thank you card in return....



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ben Niceknowinya
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


If they were searching homes without warrant and handing out little cards cheerfully saying "sorry for inconvenience" then it's a different story.


Isn't it kind of the same thing?

Unreasonable search and seizure in the home or of your belongings on the street?

Consider that every time one jaywalks, or trip over on the street a cop could construe it as suspicious behavior.

[edit on 1 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Wow, the cops actually try to explain your constitutional right to unreasonable search and seizure and dim people make this into a racial issue?

Cry me a river for all the oppressed minorities in the country when it comes to the cops actually explaining what "reasonable search and seizure" means!!

I'll give you guys a little hint to why I have zero sympathy:
If the alarm is going off at the jewelry store and someone is RUNNING away from the scene.....THEY JUST MIGHT BE THE BAD GUY!!!!!!

It doesn't matter what color of skin they have.

And as far as the "people of color" complaining about being harassed by the Poe Poe....STOP COMMITTING CRIMES ASSHOLES!!!! Or at least be smarter about it so that you don't get caught!

I'm white as white can be and my people where seriously oppressed when they first got off the boat. We might as well have been slaves as we built the transcontinental railroads (along with the chinese) and other infrastructure projects going on in the country at the same time.

WE Irish lived in the ghettos and slums too. Don't give me that BS that we blended in better because we where "white". Even to this day, when you hear an Irish name you think to yourself "Hey hey for St Patties day!". Luckily for us, that is about the extent of the stereotypes we have kept for the ages. Back when the Irish where first immigrating, it was VERY bad for them!

But I digress, my point is: My people rose up and overcame the ghettos and slums, I just want to know....why can't they?

Is it human nature that their always be someone at the bottom of the social rung?
I mean, seriously all you bleeding heart liberals....I charge you to INVITE a ghetto rat to live in your house for just 1 week.

You will understand why they are in the slums before the week is through....TRUST ME.
I'm not saying that there aren't any "good ole Irish folk" in the ghetto. But I can say with confidence that there is NOT a disproportionate percentage of our "racial" population living the ghetto life.


As far as this issue goes, I am GLAD the cops are handing out these cards that set a precedent and "limit" to what they are looking for.
Message is crystal clear to me!
Don't carry weapons in their fare city and don't be committing crimes.
If you don't like living in a DeMilitarized Zone, its your right to GTF out.

I am also for ACCOUNTABILITY for police! They need to remember WHO they work for.




[edit on 1-5-2009 by bismarcksea]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The problem is that police have to be allowed to do their jobs; if you tell them that they can't search anyone for any reason, then a lot of criminals will get away. No, the answer isn't limiting police authority, I think the answer is better police officers. Better screening, better training, and more accountability on the officers for wrongdoing.



The thing is, police CAN'T search people for ANY reason.

Innocent until proven guilt. Simple as that. Because someone is in the vicinity of an alarm, does not mean they are a suspect.

Our police force is SUPPOSED to be there to protect the innocent. Somewhere along the line there was a shift, and they are now focused on stopping criminals.

Major ideological shift there.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by bismarcksea
 


Mmm ...

Except for the fact that racial profiling is illegal in NYC.

NYPD Accused of Racial Profiling in Subway Bag Searches

South Asian man stopped 21 times by NYPD for random searches sues over racial profiling

[edit on 1 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Good advice from a friend of mine(who is a lawyer) is to politely give them your first name nothing else(this is if they just randomly stop you, different if a traffic stop, or you're being stupid). When the questions go beyond that kindly state that you feel you shouldn't answer these questions until an attorney can be made present which are my rights. They'll usually just leave you alone.



It is not your right to have an attorney present if you are not under arrest.

It IS your right, however, to refuse all questions if you are not under arrest.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bismarcksea
 


Yes because as we know minorities are the only ones committing crimes. As far as blending in are you denying that you don't? Unless you have red hair and a Celtic tattoo on your forehead you probably are just another "white as white can be" guy. "Ghetto" or not minorities are more likely to be stopped and searched. I know people who have been harassed in suits, uniformed government workers, etc. Anyone with any semblance of reasoning can see that racial bias isn't a lot more difficult to avoid when you're black or hispanic.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
It just represents a larger effort to erode our civil rights and confuse us about what we are actually required to do and what they are actually allowed to do.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It surprises me that these initiatives are coming during a liberal Democrat administration. I didn't see that coming.
I'll have to rethink that whole liberal fascism thing...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The problem is that police have to be allowed to do their jobs; if you tell them that they can't search anyone for any reason, then a lot of criminals will get away. No, the answer isn't limiting police authority, I think the answer is better police officers. Better screening, better training, and more accountability on the officers for wrongdoing.




Ever read the 4th Amendment to the Constitution? the one that talks about illegal search and seizure? If not, you definitely should.

Let me try and help you (and the people that starred your post) a little more. What is there that stops police from abusing this authority? From stopping a woman and frisking her just because they think she's hot, for example?

The principle of U.S. law (except in Louisiana) has always been innocent until proven guilty and better to let 100 guilty go free than to mistakenly arrest/convict 1 innocent person. Until now in New York, that is ...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The problem is that police have to be allowed to do their jobs; if you tell them that they can't search anyone for any reason, then a lot of criminals will get away. No, the answer isn't limiting police authority, I think the answer is better police officers. Better screening, better training, and more accountability on the officers for wrongdoing.


Perhaps you are right about the better screening, training and accountability aspects of hiring police officers. That being said, you are dead wrong about not limiting their authority to search. This practice allows police to stop, detain and search anyone, at any time, for any reason - solely at the discretion of the police officer. Perhaps you should better familiarize yourself with the 4th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which expressly prohibts these types of activities. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he stated, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
You know, when it gets to the point that police are 'stopping' people because 'they look' suspicious you've got a social engineering problem.

If an officer can't come up with a reasonable excuse for detaining a citizen who is simply 'existing' at or near a police officer, they should not be allowed to do so.

Either the citizen is or isn't a criminal. He or she either has evidence to give or does not. That's it. Not rocket science.

Police 'guessing' and 'fishing' causes more trouble than it solves, both for the citizen and for the police in general.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
This thread is a perfect example of the "NEW" social engineering. Those who believe that this a perfectly acceptable practice are good and brainwashed and ready for the NWO takeover. Whereas those of us who oppose this on the grounds of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are no doubt one of the "Right Wing Extremist" that DHS is talking about.

I expect to see further litmus tests performed by the police and the government as they seek to prepare their FEMA holiday trip list for their future endeavors. Me, I would rather die free than live as a slave!!!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join