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: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Here's something I didn't know ...

They have "stop and frisk" quotas which even the NYCPBA (Police Brotherhood Association) object to.

Stop-and-Frisk Quotas A time bomb waiting to explode

Very interesting read from the police's point of view.




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:20 PM
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.


Actually I blame people with this mentality of thinking ... "if you have nothing to hide whats the problem etc...." for everything.

Little by little all of our rights have been absolutely done away with, while making this ridiculous statement.

But of course it really doesn't matter at this point because very soon we won't be able to do anything without asking permission from the government for it. then remind me about the "if you have nothing to hide whats the problem etc...." and tell me its a better place.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I can relate to people here concerned of searches, but you have to take in consideration New York is the biggest city in America, 4th most populated in the world. Remember how dangerous this city was, say 20 years ago?
This city has cleaned up, ALOT!
These searches are nothing to scare you, trust me.
If you're NOT guilty of anything, I assure you you're good to go, fast.
I wouldn't suggest mentioning lawyers n'sh*t either! You're just attracting more attention to yourself! Be polite, and act mature! This is no big deal, and as I mentioned earlier, it's been routine in New York for years now.


I have no issues with bringing crime down in big cities where alot of innoncent people can fall victim to violent crimes, @ any given moment, especially NYC>

I can remember when it wasn't even safe to take the subway in New York.!
Especially late 80's early 90's. I recall when Times Square was filled with crack-heads and prostitures, and people getting jacked left and right.
Crime was off the charts! Out of control!
I'll mention how dramatically the crime has dropped in this city since then:
Check out the stats below.I can't even find New York!


os.cqpress.com...

It's literally one of the safest Metro-cities lo live in, in the WORLD now!

Being a resident there for six years, I'll tell you alot of crimes, especially robberies tend to happen in/around subway stations, where 90% of these searches take place.

Tell you what....Try taking the A train from Broadway(nyc) to JFK airport, at say 3AM, and then come tell me you're not glad there's (armed) cops in/around subway stations, and patrolling subway carts.
Or going through past 125th st in the Bronx........
I bet you'd be taking taxis for your commute! Especially if you're not a city person who's not accustomed to taking subways with sketchy people around you........*whistles & flags a taxi* TAXI TAXI!!!


I can guarantee you'll feel better, or safer with the presence of cops.



So don't make these cops out to look like Gestapo.
Remeber, they're working for you. And as someone mentioned it above, let them KNOW who they work for! Remind them!

NYC cops and their presence, especially around the subway stations is for the interest of the people. There is nothing sininster here.
They're making it safer.

Look at how this city has improved.

Cut the crying.









(sp)



[edit on 1-5-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
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.

What a simpleton. Of course they are focused ob stopping criminals!
It's the whole point! ANd it's working!!!!!

Have you ever hear of probable cause? Maybe you should learn the law more.

If you're suspicious, acting sketchy, carrying a backpack, they LEGALLY have the right to question you, even search you!

This is commom in evey city in America, not just New York.

I've been pulled over several times under probable suspicion. (ex)I even had a gun drawn @ me when I had a passenger in the back seat, instead of the fron t seat (seat was wet, btw) and to a cop it looks very suspicious.!
A probable kidnapping even. How does he know the person sitting behind me doesn't have a pistol in my back?

I'd like to see the crime spikes when they take these cops off patrolling these subway stations. Actually I wouldn't......

But my point is, crime will increase because there's no fuzz around to protect innocent victims.



It's what we pay them to do, bust criminals. I'd rather have them patrolling, looking to STOP crime opposed to cops sitting around in a local precinct eating doughnuts and watching Erkel.

Again, it's what our tax dollars are paying them to do. Let them do their job.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   





What a simpleton. Of course they are focused ob stopping criminals!
It's the whole point! ANd it's working!!!!!

Have you ever hear of probable cause? Maybe you should learn the law more.

If you're suspicious, acting sketchy, carrying a backpack, they LEGALLY have the right to question you, even search you!

This is common in evey city in America, not just New York.

I've been pulled over several times under probable suspicion. (ex)I even had a gun drawn @ me when I had a passenger in the back seat, instead of the fron t seat (seat was wet, btw) and to a cop it looks very suspicious.!
A probable kidnapping even. How does he know the person sitting behind me doesn't have a pistol in my back?

I'd like to see the crime spikes when they take these cops off patrolling these subway stations. Actually I wouldn't......

But my point is, crime will increase because there's no fuzz around to protect innocent victims.



It's what we pay them to do, bust criminals. I'd rather have them patrolling, looking to STOP crime opposed to cops sitting around in a local precinct eating doughnuts and watching Erkel.

Again, it's what our tax dollars are paying them to do. Let them do their job.


Thanks for proving my point. You have accepted the ideological shift that our police force is the for proaction, not protection. The ideological shift is not just accepted by people now, it is advocated, as you are a perfect example of.

Probable cause does NOT include the following:
being in the general vicinity of an alarm
being brown
wearing clothing that could be considered "gang related"
wearing clothing offensive to others
carrying a backpack....

should I keep going?

They do NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH YOU. You really need to read serach and seizure laws.

It is not common in every city to get stopped and searched for no reason. A police officer can question you, but that is as far as they can go, and you DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANYTHING.

You are defending the violation of your civil rights with your examples, and for that you should be proud . So every pasesenger in every car may have a gun to you, so we should probably pull over every car on the road. Do you realize how asinine this is?

No one is talking about stopping patrols. Big difference between patrols and searches. Quit sensationalizing.

Bottom line, you are a prime example of my origianal post, and to top it all off, you personally attack me for it. Awesome.

[edit on 5/1/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

[edit on 5/1/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 



*Probable cause Facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and the person arrested is responsible*


Here: """"The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:

---> """the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued. """""


You obviously have never been in new york, and been in bad neighborhoods where a wrong glance at some-one might result in a "buck-fifty."



And as for wearing gang patches, absolutely. Especially in gang infested neighborhoods. LA is a good example. They'll even take a picture on the spot, tatoos etc, because the crime rate is so high there with gang activity, a description of a tatoo might solve the next murder.
Is gang violence NOT a problem in LA?
Are you against gang-units as well?

And as for backpacks and suspicious behavior, or having a bloody knuckles here:


"The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[1] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".


Chances are, even having a bloody knuckle (as I made a sarcastic ex.) is probable cause, that you've been fighting. Commited a crime.


When the crime rates spike in Portland Oregon like they have in New York, then tell me if your opinion on this matter is different or not.

Damn hippies.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 


Just for the record ...

I lived in NYC from 84 - 89 and again from 99 - 06 ...

... and I respectfully disagree with you.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
How about they just arrest anyone who is unable to read the contents of the card back to them (and isn't a tourist).

Next days headline:

"New York Crime Drops 80%"



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

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.


... to protect the innocent from what exactly?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Then you should know this is nothing new.


You should also have seen the siginificant crime drop around subways and stations since the time you were first there. Where alllllot of violent crimes were happening. Right???
And I'm not talking about just neighborhoods such as Bed-Stuy, Bushwick,
Jamaica, Wash. Heights, Bronx, Harlem etc.

Remember alphabet city? In Manhattan?

The presence and "justified" searches by NYC police have made a positive and significant impact on the city. MORE than negative, over the years. What's wrong with that?

If they wanna search my backpack, here and there, fine! What's the big deal? It's a city of 8 million!
If I'm benefitting someone else by allowing this search, then in my heart I know I'm doing the right thing. If a criminal has second thoughts of commiting a violent offense where in vicinity of these officers, then something is right. Stats prove it bro.

Let these guys do their jobs. Geeez. They're average people like me and you. It's city cops!!!!

I've never had a problem with any of my searches, and I might add they were very professional about it, every time.

Not saying every cop is a saint here......

There's good and bad all over the world.

But look at stats, and results before making an assumption that these cops are "violationg" the law and are "violating" our rights?!

As I posted above: Probable cause is legal. Period.

Are there people who take advantage? Probably.
Then again, look at how many people take advantage of our sytem!

This is getting repetative.

All good btw. This is a great topic schrodingers.

And I respectfully disagree with you.

Cheers.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to: Ben Niceknowinya

Yes, UNREASONABLE search and seizure. Being on a subway, driving your car with a passenger, carrying a backpack-these are ABOLUTELY not "reasonable" actions for search and seizure.
The only instances that a police officer can search without a warrant, is if they WITNESS crime related activity. Seeing someone smoking weed on the corner, or concealing a weapon, counts. Carrying a backpack does not.

ALL OTHER SEARCHES REQUIRE A WARRANT, EVEN WITH PROBABLY CAUSE.

Gang related material is only admissible as "identifying marks". It in no way shows a crime has been committed. This is why they take pictures and document it, so that they can use it to identify a person LATER.

Again, you are sensationalizing. I never advocated the disbanding of gang unit, or the stopping of patrols, as you have accused.

However, having these units in place, and giving them police-state authority(which is exactly what this is) is a whole other issue.

Fighting is not always a crime. Nice try though. Also, I soend A LOT of time working on cars, and as any other gearhead knows, your rarely finish a day of work on a car without bloody knuckes. Is that grounds for me to be searched?

As far as crime rates, you do realize that portland, oregon, has a higher crime-per-capita rate than any other city in the nation, right?

Edit to erase the long quote, and to add:
Whats with the personal attacks? Is your argument really that weak?

[edit on 5/1/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I want to see the card that says

"We stopped you because your pants are below your but and you look like an idiot. We therefor think that you may act like an idiot and may be up to criminal activity."

Thank you for your display of your boxer shorts.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

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.


... to protect the innocent from what exactly?





To protect them in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Changing to a "crime prevention" ideology means that you now view EVERYONE as a potential criminal, and that those that are innocent should be penalized for the wrongdoings of a minority.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
reply to: Ben Niceknowinya

As far as crime rates, you do realize that portland, oregon, has a higher crime-per-capita rate than any other city in the nation, right?

Edit to erase the long quote, and to add:
Whats with the personal attacks? Is your argument really that weak?

[edit on 5/1/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]




, you have got 2 be kidding right????
population: 538,000
you had what, 4 murders last year????
688 violent crimes???
240 robberies???

Where did you come up with this fact??? I suggest beofre posting bogus facts you do a little research.....

And how am I personally attacking you? If ANYTHING you're the one getting personal saying I'm "sensationalizing" everything!
ANd stop putting words in my mouth!

read what I posted pertaining "probable cause" laws!
Seriously! God you're stubborn!
And who's sensationalizing?


Blood on your hands, regradless of HOW it happened looks VERY suspicious, and is ABSOLUTELY under grounds of questioning and search.
And that was just a mere example I made......it could be that you cut your hand brushing your pet alligator's teeth, but to a cop it also looks like you just stabbed some1. See probable cause?

I'm not even gonna go furhter with you pessimistic......
you're either young, have ADD, or plain arroganty and anti-authority overall.
Either way you have the characteristics of a pest, who doesn't wanna listen to anyone, and wants to rebel against everything, including city cops doing their jobs.

*search my bag if you want. I'll dip in Marinara so you can have a taste of New York*






posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Sorry, not convinced that waiving my rights and allowing an illegal and intrusive search is a smart thing to do. Anyone advocating such a position is either ignorant about their rights or has an agenda.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I guess you dont know what "per-capita" means, huh.

Now, I will admit that NO has passed portland in this since katrina, but portland is still top-10 per capita in the nation.

So far you have called me a "simpleton" and a "damn hippie". Id call that personal attacks. Me pointing out that you are putting words into my mouth and sensationalizing what I have said is not. Sorry.

No, I do not see how that is probably cause, and you have shown a perfect example of why it is not. Blood on your hand IN NO WAY INDICATES YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. You said so yourself. It then HAS to be a judgement call on the officers part, and they do not ahve the right to make that call.

And, for your last paragraph, well, that about sums it up. You'd like to attack me on this, and that's fine. Doesn't change teh fact that you are advocating a police state, and defending it tooth-and-nail. (For the record, it has become quite apparent that those who use the "you must be young" line are people who are trying to deflect from their own immaturity. Dont make that mistake)

Sad really.



[edit on 5/1/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

[edit on 5/1/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic



, you have got 2 be kidding right????
population: 538,000
you had what, 4 murders last year????
688 violent crimes???
240 robberies???

Where did you come up with this fact??? I suggest beofre posting bogus facts you do a little research.....

And how am I personally attacking you? If ANYTHING you're the one getting personal saying I'm "sensationalizing" everything!
ANd stop putting words in my mouth!

read what I posted pertaining "probable cause" laws!
Seriously! God you're stubborn!
And who's sensationalizing?


Blood on your hands, regradless of HOW it happened looks VERY suspicious, and is ABSOLUTELY under grounds of questioning and search.
And that was just a mere example I made......it could be that you cut your hand brushing your pet alligator's teeth, but to a cop it also looks like you just stabbed some1. See probable cause?

I'm not even gonna go furhter with you pessimistic......
you're either young, have ADD, or plain arroganty and anti-authority overall.
Either way you have the characteristics of a pest, who doesn't wanna listen to anyone, and wants to rebel against everything, including city cops doing their jobs.

*search my bag if you want. I'll dip in Marinara so you can have a taste of New York*





I guess you dont know what "per-capita" means, huh.






Do the math swifty. Here's a link too.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
And that is one of the reasons I stopped going to NYC. I use to love it there, but they are seriously sucking all of the novelty out of the place.. Boys in Black EVERYWHERE.. not my idea of a good time anymore.


I am not saying that there should be no cops, but there are way to many now. They shouldn't be able to just stop anyone they feel like. I think its a form of classification and stereotyping, and here in the U.S. there is not reason for that.. One of the greatest things about this place use to be the freedom to be who you are, not anymore though.. obviously



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Gotta love the Wiki link.

First, you need to consider crime-per-capita included not just violent crime.
Then you need to consider that portland murder rates are higher than your silly wiki link claims:
www.oregonlive.com...
www.theoutlookonline.com...
blog.oregonlive.com...

then you need to consider that property crime in portland is second highest in the nation.





[edit on 5/1/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


kosmic, please. 'Democrat' refers to A person. It is 'Democratic' Party, to refer to the group. The use of the 'democrat' moniker is a pejorative tactic used by the Limbaugh/Fox/right wing hate-mongers.

Might as well call the reds the 'Republic' Party. (Personally, I prefer 'republiCon').

Which leads me to the thread you linked. I feel it is slightly different than Schro's thread here; the NYC action is local in nature, and the one you referred to seems to me a tempest in a teapot, after reading through it.

Unless and until the 'Bill of Rights' is repealed, or the entire Constitution is trashed (fortunately Bush/Cheney couldn't finish the job in only eight years) then these 'tests of authority' are and will continue to be illegal.

[edit on 5/1/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join