Stop-and-Frisk: NYPD stands its ground while facing sharp criticism

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

Its not that I want to go unchallenged its that I dont want someone extremely bias coming in and posting walls of comments that are from the viewpoint that police are saints and not subject to human nature.

Have you gone back and read through my previous posts? I have never argued that ALL police are saints. I have never argued that police are not subject to human nature. The point of some of my arguments have been that police are just as human as you or I.

My problem is not the police its is this particular law.

No, it seems that your problem IS the police because you go on to say that there are police officers out there who abuse the rules on stop and frisk and violate people's fourth amendment rights. Unfortunately, you can give no specific case where an officer has abused the use of a stop and frisk. You can only assume that there are officers out there that do engage in this sort of abuse. That is why it seems your appraisal is uninformed at best.

I will admit that there are probably officers out there that do abuse the practice. But it is impossible for you or I to make the determination on each case unless the facts are heard and the articulation is made for each instance. That is the point. Just because the practice MAY be abused does not mean it is common place for officers to abuse said practice.

Reasonable suspicion isnt someone just walking down the road its someone acting shady. If an officer were to do this to someone who was looking like he's about to rob a store thats just fine but as the law stands its just anybody whos walking down the streets.

Ok, let me propose this question. In your city, there is a certain well defined area where there is an extreme amount of gun violence at a certain time of night. This gun violence happens every night and is perpetrated by teenage males who were aimlessly loitering in the neighborhood. Some of these teenage males do not necessarily live in the neighborhood. As a police officer patrolling in this neighborhood, you identify a group of teenage males who you do not recognize as people living in the neighborhood. It is around the same time in which most of the gun violence occurs in the neighborhood. You watch this group for a while and determine that they are aimlessly wandering around the neighborhood and loitering. Would these facts amount to reasonable suspicion to stop the group, find out what they are doing in the area and identify them? Would these facts amount to reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat down of the subjects because they fit the description of people who engage in gun violence in the area?

Their needs to be much more accountability when it comes to this type of law.

There is accountability when it comes to stop and frisks. When an officer finds something on the person they just stopped and frisked, the officer charges said person. The officer completes a statement of probable cause articulating exactly what their reasonable suspicion was. In court, the officer must also testify to their reasonable suspicion. A judge hears the articulation and determines if it was reasonable or not. If the judge determines the suspicion was not reasonable, the pat down and any evidence recovered from it is thrown out resulting in the entire case being thrown out.

But there is no way you can sit here and say there arent plenty of officers that dont care about a real reason because they dont have to worry about getting caught just profiling and discriminating because the law gives to much room for easy abuse

So I cannot sit here and say most officers dont abuse the practice but you can sit here and say there are plenty of officers that do abuse the practice without any evidence of such?

You are a troll. here is my argument. Now go take your bias "all Knowing", "the law is always just", "police would never abuse there power" delusional trolling somewhere else

Man, we were having a great debate up until this point.

reply to post by shadowcat

Not only does this law infringe upon millions of innocent people's civil liberties, it also creates yet another racial divide (or just adds to it).

No police tactic or policy should be specifically target a particular race.

But the mere accusation of racism is not sufficient enough to claim the practice has a rascist INTENT.

Again, please show me a neighborhood which is predominantly white that suffers from the same level of street crime. Then, please show me that the same tactics are not used in said neighborhood.

The point is, the tactic follows the levels of street crime not the race of the neighborhood.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by shadowcat

 

The point is, the tactic follows the levels of street crime not the race of the neighborhood.

Obviously they are in the wrong area if 82%, 89%, and other such numbers are innocent people.

Originally posted by mwood
Yes, it is unconstitutional and should be stopped immediately but it won't.

Nazi Germany reborn.

Remember when people talked about when stuff like gun confiscation and martial law questions came up whether or not cops would actually go against the citizens......... I think this is proof they will, and have.

Stop comparing the USA to Nazi Germany...I for one am fed up with it.

The USA is far worse in comparison. Far worse on every level!!!

you can give no specific case where an officer has abused the use of a stop and frisk.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Read the news article it talks in detail about a case that was obvious abuse of the law...

reply to post by shadowcat

Obviously they are in the wrong area if 82%, 89%, and other such numbers are innocent people.

Or, it just means a very small portion of the population is responsible for a very large portion of the violent crime.

Which is usually the case. 5% of the population is responsible for 95% of violent crime.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

Read the news article it talks in detail about a case that was obvious abuse of the law...

I did. Mr. Bilal does not specify if he gave the officer consent to look through his bag of laundry or not. Mr. Lopez did not specifically state if he had given consent either. But because it is not stated, you automatically assume he did not give the officer consent and the officer searched anyway.

If he denied the officer consent and the officer searched anyway, dont you think that would be a very important fact that would automatically be included in the article? A fact that would automatically bring the officer's actions under suspicion even to the most trusting person?

This is the problem. You see a news story, it has holes, you fill in the holes with whatever facts justify your point of view on the subject.

If they claimed the officer asked for consent, they denied it and the officer SEARCHED them anyways, there is obviously a violation on the part of the officer. Note I highlighted SEARCHED. SEARCHED is not the same as FRISKED which we have already established.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

 

Read the news article it talks in detail about a case that was obvious abuse of the law...

I did. Mr. Bilal does not specify if he gave the officer consent to look through his bag of laundry or not. Mr. Lopez did not specifically state if he had given consent either. But because it is not stated, you automatically assume he did not give the officer consent and the officer searched anyway.

If he denied the officer consent and the officer searched anyway, dont you think that would be a very important fact that would automatically be included in the article? A fact that would automatically bring the officer's actions under suspicion even to the most trusting person?

This is the problem. You see a news story, it has holes, you fill in the holes with whatever facts justify your point of view on the subject.

If they claimed the officer asked for consent, they denied it and the officer SEARCHED them anyways, there is obviously a violation on the part of the officer. Note I highlighted SEARCHED. SEARCHED is not the same as FRISKED which we have already established.

HAHAHA yeah well grasping at straws here arent you. You ever tell an officer no? he probably would have had his face beat in and drugs planted on him had he tried to resist the officer.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

HAHAHA yeah well grasping at straws here arent you. You ever tell an officer no? he probably would have had his face beat in and drugs planted on him had he tried to resist the officer.

So you are saying it is possible that he consented to the search but was intimidated into consenting?

“They were searching for drugs. The funny thing was that it was a mesh laundry bag. I’m not sure what I could hide,” Bilal said.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

If Mr. Bilal consented to a search, based on this quote, he probably consented because he was not carrying anything illegal. If he felt intimidated into consenting to a search, dont you think he would have said so when the media was interviewing him?

That is exactly what I am saying. If someone gets the opportunity to voice their complaints to the media, wouldn't they take the opportunity?

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Well the thing about consent is one way or the other a police officer that doesnt believe in the constitution is going to have their way. I have been pulled out of my car and been searched without giving consent by some officer in a bad mood. they and I say they because it was two male officers and a female officer hand cuffed me and searched me after I told them no they found nothing so they let me go. I even went to the police station to file a complaint afterwords and nothing was done big surprise right. On the other hand I have had good experience with cops as well. But like I stated before it is the police that dont care that are the problem and they arent punished when discovered. A cop should not be able to just stop anyone just because they feel like it and then to put their hands on them for no real reason other than "reasonable suspicion" (as in well I profiled this guy because he looks like he may do drugs). Its just sick and not right regardless of what our bought and paid for leaders say.

An element of the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practice was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge on Tuesday, a ruling that may have broad implications for the city’s widespread use of police stops as a crime-fighting tactic.

The decision, the first federal ruling to find that the practice under the Bloomberg administration violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, focused on police stops conducted in front of several thousand private residential buildings in the Bronx enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program. Property managers in that program have asked the police to patrol their buildings and to arrest trespassers.

But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said officers were routinely stopping people outside the buildings without reasonable suspicion that they were trespassing.

“While it may be difficult to say where, precisely, to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters, such a line exists, and the N.Y.P.D. has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops outside TAP buildings in the Bronx,” Judge Scheindlin ruled.

Link

Freakin gestapo tactics. What a country we live in!!