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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic



"A right is a right."



"I find it amazing that anyone will defend this...."



Hmmmm.....seems you are getting a little testy, it is ANYONES right to disagree no matter how "amazed" you are that WE "have the right" to do so....(if it's "rights" you would like to debate here...) I for one am enjoying the ongoing conversation between the OP and Schrod...(pass the popcorn please?)


[edit on 1-5-2009 by rockhndr]




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockhndr
I for one am enjoying the ongoing conversation between the OP and Schrod...(pass the popcorn please?)


Have some popcorn, but just so you know the OP and Schrodog are one and the same.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 


Oh, all right ...

I'm honestly trying to understand where you're coming from here.

From what I gather, the basis of your argument is that NYC due to its nature has to somehow bend the constitution in order to curb crime.

However, as you yourself mentioned, crime was greatly reduced in NYC in the 90's. This was when Giuliani came in as the mayor, but the "stop and frisk" policy was NOT in existence yet.

So to me, the argument that somehow this is NEEDED is wrong on two front, 1. Constitutionally, and 2. Crime prevention in NYC has been proven possible without such draconian measures.



All good.


I would also give Giuliani alot of credit for cracking on crime. No doubt.
Especially when he was US Attorney. It's fair to say he was on a mission to reduce crime. Just ask the NY mob. lol
And it wasn't "such draconian measures" it was very simliar measures:
city cops presence, and some searches in/around the subway stations.

Also MEANING the police presence was pre AND post 9/11.
Sure, after 9/11 the presence was felt more. But not as exaggerated as some people make it out 2 be...."a police state."
C'mon. You lived there, you know.....most of the authority presence was especially in Grand Central where more than 1/4 million people commute through every day.
Also just about every subway station from Pelham Parkway to Staten Island. (all the borroughs) in addition, foot patrollers, as well as cruisers deployed in certain areas, from certain precincts.

IMO, it's necessary to maintain this presence.

I think the consequences would be worse if they were to be removed?
Would you agree?

Why fix something that's not broken.

Again, show me that the majority of New Yorkers are against this, where it's actually taking place.
As for constitutional rights, if probable cause is present, then they have the right, legally!!! Period.
It's roughly an average of 500,000 searches a year! In a metro area of nearly 21,000,000 people!

How is this a police state?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I have been stopped and searched all my life living in london, get over yourselves



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I'll take the popcorn, Thank-you...and put the rum'ncoke down...lol.....Sorry...forgot the name and was just aggravated...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Reading
 


Maybe a voice of reason here???? Thanks London...some outside input is always nice...I understand rights, but when safety may be at heart, well, I guess I understand why they do what they do sometimes.....
...always an ulterior motive in some eyes I guess...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockhndr
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ya' think someone should have let the Bush cronies in on that little bit of info?????
2nd line.....reminder to self...feed the dog-NO not YOU Schrodinger!!



[edit on 1-5-2009 by rockhndr]


It's up to us to remind them.
You know....We the people



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reading
I have been stopped and searched all my life living in london, get over yourselves


The difference is that our Constitutions says we can't be searched without reasonable cause.

If an officer tries to search me, I'll be contacting a lawyer and retiring early

I advise everyone else to do the same.
Too many people have died for our freedoms to give them up so readily.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
This just keeps getting better and better ...

Apparently the NYPD is keeping records of not only the 10% of those searched who were arrested, but also of the other 90% who committed no crime and inputs them into a searchable database.


The NYCLU learned of the database from an internal NYPD operations order, dated 2006 (and now available on the NYCLU's website), that mandates that "stop-and-frisk worksheets," which officers fill out after stopping and frisking any individual, be submitted for inclusion in a new database. According to sources with first-hand knowledge of the database, the names of persons stopped are included in the database and can be obtained through a query of the system.

Initial reports state that in 2006, the Department completed stop-and-frisk forms on 508,540 individuals. Of that number, only 50,436 were arrested or received summonses, leaving 458,104 people, or 90 percent of all people stopped, found to have engaged in no unlawful activity. According to the Department, 85.7 percent of all persons stopped were black or Hispanic.

New York State Penal Law (Section 160.50) requires that police records of people who are arrested and whose cases are later dismissed must be sealed so as to protect their privacy rights. The massive new stop-and-frisk database circumvents those legal protections by including hundreds of thousands of people who have never been arrested or given a summons. And for those people who were arrested and whose cases were dismissed, unsealed retention of their names in the NYPD database would directly violate this law. NYCLU


The "they're doing it to keep us safe" argument is getting thinner by the minute.



As an added bonus for ATS members:

What to do if you're stopped by police



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Hey, SDog....have you seen this video?

The lecturer is James Duane, a Professor at Regent Law School...
(it's long, two parts...)



[edit on 5/1/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Britain had a "Suss" Law (Suspicion) until 1981. It was repealed because it was abused by certain members of the constabulary.

Hmmm, a law where you could detain, search anyone - even arrest in that instance - based on your own personal suspicions. No room for abuse of that particular law, surely?

Why did Britain repeal it? Because it got out of hand, and the Govt was held responsible in numerous cases for the bad apples...

But that could never happen here.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


I believe you are referring to 'proactive policing'. Can you explain how that is different from "protection" or "protecting the innocent? "Protection" implies the prevention of physical harm or loss of property. In order to prevent crime, one must be proactive. This is as opposed to being 'reactive', which is acting after the physical harm or loss of property has occurred. I, for one, would rather the Police be proactive in preventing my being killed by a bomb on a subway, than waiting until I am dead to try to figure out who had caused my death. But, that's just me.

As far as "innocence and guilt". Those do not apply to whether or not a search is reasonable. People found guilty of a crime (by a Judge or Jury) are not searched, reasonably or unreasonably. The evidence against them has already been discovered and presented. A search is to uncover or reveal evidence of a crime, to be presented a later time. Such evidence might include the tools of a crime, the fruits of a crime or items of which the mere possession is a crime.

If you are asked to open your backpack, before entering a subway, it is your right to simply refuse and walk away. But, not to enter onto public transportation, where the rights of many thousands of innocents are being "protected". In other words...It's not all about you!

Before the often used, misused and misquoted Ben Franklin "liberty" thing is thrown in my face, again, let me offer my research on it. The actual quote, as I understand it, is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755

A couple of key words here are "essential" and "a little". I'll let you look up the definitions to these.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Well, as long as they're handing out cards, I guess that makes it OK.

And if they can include a coloring book, that should justify property confiscation.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 


I think you misunderstood me on to many different levels for me to break it down to you... There are many cops in NYC now, its obvious. And now they are taking it a step further by invading even more and then thinking its okay because they have this little card..


Edit: Short and sweet

[edit on 1-5-2009 by KaginD]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Well, as long as they're handing out cards, I guess that makes it OK.

And if they can include a coloring book, that should justify property confiscation.


I demand crayola crayons also or deals off. I refuse to have my rights taken away and get nothing in return but the cheap wax crayons.. Not on my watch haha



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I'd like to bring it back to its most fundamental level: money = control, as that is the most important aspect differentiating reactive & proactive policing.

I think SDogs link about quotas is very insightful as to the prime directive of police enforcement.

Officers probably get a yearly bonus for hitting their quotas, so they have a conflict of interest in conducting their jobs to 'protect and serve'. If they are able to vacate in Hawaii through bonus incentives, then they will pull any Tom, Dick or Harry for a misdemeanour.

I may be wrong, but i'd love to know from any serving officer if they get a fixed salary or base salary with some kind of commission based bonus from how many tickets they issued.

The article SDog cited about data acquisition also means control. If you sneeze, breathe, blog, say a key word on the phone, then the data will be easily referenced against an already identified person. I don't think any here on ATS can deny a covert plan to tag the populous.

The police obviously have a very tough job, but i just feel that 70% of their time is spent 'fishing' for crime. Perhaps their power does go to their head, as some may feel they are judge, jury and executioner in the field of combat. This perhaps explains their flippant use of tasers, as they
feel empowered to skip the judiciary system and dish out their own punishment there and then.

Here's is the English equivalent of the 'know your rights card' posted by SDog:




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by KaginD
 


For your information, the "stop and frisk" laws were adopted in New York back in 1964, not 2001.

I think you're the one who needs to check up on "current events" sweetie.

Ooops, you edited your thread........what am I responding to again?





posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 


Yes, I edited my thread. Good catch! I'm not talking about when they made it, I'm talking about when they started using it. And they started using it in 2001, is there anything else you want to argue with me about?? If so U2U me please because Sdogs thread is not the place for this. Thanks



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


My friend was dating a cop (not in NYC) and I had a long conversation with him about this one night. From what I remember, his department didn't have a quota in such terms. I think I remember him saying that there were incentives to make more busts though. I went though all the ins and outs of the searching topic, and he told me that theres always a way that they can make you let them search your car or your personal. For example, if you refuse the auto search, they can call and get it towed. Believe that? I guess they have their scare tactics.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Ben Niceknowinya, i was just wondering if your avatar is a close up of the goatse picture?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join