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.

 

Thousands silently march to protest NYPD stop-and-frisks

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Before reading this, I hadn't heard of this law in NY, and i can't believe that this is allowed! What happened to probably cause, or it seems, according to the stats, probably race..

TheRawStory

Thousands of civil rights activists, LGBT leaders, labor and community organizers, and citizens outraged by New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy are marching today in a demonstration against the law enforcement tactic they say is a legally dubious form of institutionalized racial profiling.


“Every criminologist will tell you that when you engage in massive, street-level racial profiling, you build a wall between the most victimized communities in the city and the cops,” NAACP President Ben Jealous said Sunday morning on MSNBC.



According to data from the New York Civil Liberties Union, New York police officers conducted nearly 685,724 stop-and-frisks last year, a 600 percent increase since Bloomberg first took office. Eighty-eight percent of the people stopped in those incidents were found totally innocent; eighty-seven percent of those stopped were black or Latino.


Hmm.. seems pretty obvious that they are blatantly racial profiling!
87% of people stopped were Latino or Black! White people are equally able to carry concealed weapons, cause crime, etc etc etc

AND, the fact that 88% of all people stopped were innocent! I know, i know, that means that 12% were guilty of something.. drugs, concelaed, whatever.. And yes, it does stop some illegal activities from going on, however, a 12% success rate is incredibly low, and not effective. Think of it this way, if anything you did in your regular day was only 12% effective, you would stop doing it yes? Your coffee maker only works 12% of the time? Your T.V. only turns on 12% of the time? etc etc etc etc

To me this law is a complete and total violation of presonal rights! They must have probably cause, or at least you USED to require probably cause to search someone. Seems to me that being black or latino gives you a a huge chance of being stopped and frisked, just because of your race.....

Here area bunch of ATS threads for more information:

Stop-and-Frisk: NYPD stands its ground while facing sharp criticism
NYPD "Stop and Frisk" reaches all time high
Stop and frisk policy taggs over a million stops

Thoughts?!




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 

It would seem to me that it has to do with looking out of place, rather than just race.
I do a lot of Google street view traveling (meaning virtual "traveling") around NY city while studying the architecture of the buildings and I see black men in hoodies apparently loitering and not having a legitimate reason for being where they are, and I could easily imagine being a policeman and asking the dude what the hell he is up to.
NYC depends a lot on tourists and if they are being preyed upon by criminals with concealed weapons, then that is bad for business, and Bloomberg has worked hard at making the place visitor friendly, so there you go and some people should keep in their own neighborhoods if they are vagrants and loiterers with hoods pulled over their heads and suspicious objects in their pockets.

. . . i know, that means that 12% were guilty of something.. drugs, concelaed, whatever..
That is a lot and would seem to a lot of NYC inhabitants as justification.
edit on 17-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
i realize we are expected to pretend that all ethnic groups commit crimes in equal proportion, but in the meantime, the racial profiling searches potentially thwarted 82,286.88 crimes in one year. a terrible terrible thing?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I see your point, sort of...
The issue is the violation of rights without probably cause.... Loitering should not be cause to search someone



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 

Just FYI - it's not a law, just a policy. And it is "abused" by members of the NYPD. Reasonable suspicion is subjective and left to the interpretation (or whims) of some LEOs leads to harassment of innocent people apparently, quite often - umm 88% of the time.

I think the officers need better guidelines and education.

edit on 17-6-2012 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





I see black men in hoodies apparently loitering and not having a legitimate reason for being where they are, and I could easily imagine being a policeman and asking the dude what the hell he is up to.


Either these "black men in hoodies" are on private property and trespassing, or there "legitimately, or they are on public property where no one needs a "legitimate" reason to be. Being black and wearing a "hoodie" is not a crime. Due process of law is mandated by the New York State Constitution in Article I, Section 6:


No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law


A stop and frisk without any probable cause is a deprivation of that liberty, and this may come as a shock to you, but even "black men in hoodies" have the right to due process of law.


edit on 17-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Being black and wearing a "hoodie" is not a crime.

If I was seeing white men loitering in hoodies, I would have mentioned them.
In NYC there are signs on the sidewalks saying "No Standing" so loitering is not a protected right.
Liberty would be to go from one place to another with a legitimate reason to do so.
Ambushing tourists does not fit that definition of liberty as far as I am concerned.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





If I was seeing white men loitering in hoodies, I would have mentioned them. In NYC there are signs on the sidewalks saying "No Standing" so loitering is not a protected right.


The race of a person is irrelevant when it comes to unalienable rights and if government cannot protect rights then what good are they?

Apparently you don't pay attention to the news. NYC to pay $15 million to loiterers


The city has agreed to pay $15 million to 22,000 New Yorkers — many of them homeless panhandlers — who were arrested for loitering using laws that were struck down decades ago.

“Thousands of New Yorkers were arrested and forced to defend themselves in court, and even serve time in jail, for completely legal behavior,” said Katherine Rosenfeld, representing the plaintiffs in the class action suit.


The Supreme Court is none too impressed with loitering ordinances either. City of Chicago v. Morales.




Liberty would be to go from one place to another with a legitimate reason to do so.


No government, local, state or federal, has the authority to determine what is or what is not a "legitimate" right of travel. No Constitution, including New York State Constitution has defined liberty or the right to travel in the very narrow scope you have.




Ambushing tourists does not fit that definition of liberty as far as I am concerned.


If someone is "ambushing" tourists, as in acting criminally, then this "ambush" needs no loitering ordinance in order to empower New York prosecutors to prosecute the crime, i.e. assault. In terms of "as far as I'm concerned" goes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as the N.Y.P.D. was theirs, but when they acted upon that opinion, it cost the City of New York $15 million dollars.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
These stop and frisks are not happening in tourist areas -

Here is the link to what REAL people have to deal with.



ETA - to JMDEWEY - those no standing signs refer to CARS!!
edit on 18-6-2012 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

No government, local, state or federal, has the authority to determine what is or what is not a "legitimate" right of travel.

There are plenty concerning travel, across county and state lines for example, for criminal purposes.

"Move along" is a comment that is traditional, in a sense, coming from law enforcement offices, you you are bucking something that has been in action since civilization. So good luck, or rather, have fun wasting your time with rights to be a public nuisance.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





There are plenty concerning travel, across county and state lines for example, for criminal purposes.


A crime is a crime and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of travel. Loitering is not a crime.




"Move along" is a comment that is traditional, in a sense, coming from law enforcement offices, you you are bucking something that has been in action since civilization. So good luck, or rather, have fun wasting your time with rights to be a public nuisance.


Murder has been in action long before civilization. Apparently I am bucking that too. I get you have little respect for the rights of others, but it is you who is bucking law, and go ahead and ignore the $15 million NYC doled out to all those homeless people for bucking law too, that is the way it always is with thugs, they ignore law and claim their thuggery is as old as the hills and this makes it "legitimate".



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Okay this is a little off topic but touches on a previous posters statement.

We have got to STOP criminalizing the hoodie, II am white and 52 year old, MY father wore hoodies, and being daddies girl as I was, I would find ones in my size in colors that matched his.

It is not at all uncommon to see construction workers wearing orange hoodies under their safety vests doing road work.

My daughter hand makes custom hoodies with one of a kind designs for people.

Hoodies are not a "black" only style of clothing, nor are they some something that only criminals wear.

Lay off the HOODIES! They didn't do anything to youl!
edit on 6/18/12 by Pixiefyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maluhia
These stop and frisks are not happening in tourist areas -

Here is the link to what REAL people have to deal with.




I agree with what you are saying
With that said the video you posted is about brownsville

and Brownsville IS CRAZYYYYYY



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
This is AWFUL.

People on here complain about a police state but cease to do so when it deals with a portion of society they are not part of.

If this were happening in the suburbs or farmville there'd be a million police state posts, stars, and flags. Sad really.


edit on 19-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Here is an unteresting article i found today on this,
www.disinfo.com...


Text The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program has created two very distinct sets of experiences for the residents of New York City. One portion of the population’s experience embodies relative freedom as we legally and culturally understand it. However, for minority residents of the city, the experience is part of a larger ongoing relationship to the state as potential crime-suspects and targets of surveillance and harassment. One city, two radically different experiences.For those of you who have never had the displeasure of experiencing the city as a potential crime-suspect, stop-and-frisk is a tactic that essentially allows police to conduct a search of any person of their choosing at any time. So what defines “a person of their choosing?” Reasonable suspicion can be based on something as simple as “movement” or “clothing.” In 2011, so-called “furtive movements” provided the justification for a stop in more than 50% of 685,724 cases, while “clothes commonly used in a crime” was cited in more than 30,000 instances.



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join