It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Police Harrassment: "Surreptitious recording of a stop-question-and-frisk in New York"

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by Dynamike

What part of "stop and frisk" don't you understand? He was stopped because they have a policy of stopping and frisking people at random. If they see someone they suspect might have drugs or a weapon they stop and frisk them. It's not really that hard to wrap your head around. Also it's not a question of if it's real, it's real, it happens. Did you follow up and read about it? There is a site with links.

The kid wasn't doing any of the things you suggest, and that's part of the problem. You are thinking just like these cops are. He wasn't doing any of those things, but you for some reason can't fathom that cops would stop him (despite the fact that they do it all the time) for nothing more than looking suspicious to them.
edit on 13-10-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:36 AM
Hope to not sound too cheesy but reminds me of this.

Good one Gavin as many others.

Just who are those who claim to represent those they claim to represent?

edit on 14-10-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 01:30 PM
lawsuit. gov . will be acquitted based on public good.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:06 AM

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Yeah, I agree. It is a very important story and the profanity was minimal and only on the recording itself. I then wrote a rant about how as adults we should be able to post documentaries that have profanity in context of the subject - that too go thrown in the trash bin. Now I am on thin ice because of it and can't even get a response back as to why there can't be a discussion about it. If it is important as this story is, imho, it should be allowed. But it isn't and won't be. Have a great day!


Maybe this tells us more about this site and it's operators, than it does about anything else?

I quite agree that important information ought to be highlighted, regardless of the inclusion of words or phrases that some people may be mildly offended by reading them.

I too find it ever so slightly offensive when people use bad language, especially out of context, however, i find it much more than mildly offensive that people are harving their rights ignored and their lives blighted by corruption in government and corporations...we should know about and freely discuss these issues, whether they contain mild expletives or not.

If not, there are always other...more progressive websites to air our views on.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Corrupt scum police helping the Illuminati agenda without even knowing it. Wonder if that cop has kids. How would he feel if someone broke his little girls arm and punched her in the face........ what douche bag cops need to realise is these people they stop are someones son/ daughter.....

One species...... Cops need to become more intelligent and realise the immoral laws that they are being asked to follow are marching us towards a New World Order of continued tyranny.......

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by ColoradoJens

All the UFO sighting videos have profanity.

Re the video
I wouldn't call this anything new. All police forces have quotas. They have to make so many arrests, give out so many traffic tickets etc
edit on 15-10-2012 by violet because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:28 AM
If you're a local New Yorker, to pick one specific community, it is high time to learn about the law. When you're outgunned (the police have all the guns in NYC), the place to fight is in the courtroom, or leading up to it, not on the streets. Knowing the law is so critical, including contract law and criminal law - how it actually applies, because they overstep those laws every day
Learning a little bit helped me in the past, at least a couple times

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:50 AM

Originally posted by rival
This is absolutely outrageous!

I'm mad as hell right now. Stop and frisk?! IN AMERICA........AS ROUTINE POLICY?!

I've never heard of this until now. How could this stand up to constitutional scrutiny!?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This needs to be challenged NOW! People....ALL PEOPLE....need to get angry and get active.

I...I... can't understand this....Nazi Germany was within the last century. AMERICANS fought and died
to stop evil power systems like this.......and we just take it as a normal day-to-day routine?

I can't believe I've never even heard about this till now....nobody's even speaking out...

Arch zionist bloomberg says 'it's necessary'.

What more do you need, in terms of authority?

technofascism is hungry. They have tools that rival God (in many person's eyes).

All that aside, prepare to be labeled as 'mentally unsound'.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I have a mixed reaction to this video. First off, we are given a very careful "set" at the start, told that something bad was done to this teen by the cops, and told ahead of time what to believe about what we are going to hear. Then, we have only audio, and only of this stop, not of any of the others. No video (though I do understand that might have been impossible to obtain), and thus no clear picture of the events. From the start, the cops told the guy why they stopped him. They stated that he kept looking at them, and the way I interpret that is that he was watching them to see if they were noticing him. Something that IS suspicious behavior. Someone paying too much attention to the cops is usually someone trying to get away with a crime. Plus, we have no idea if this teen is involved in a gang (anyone know if he displayed any colors or symbols?), or whether or not he's got a criminal record. It's very possible he was actually up to something, and decided to make a recording to look innocent, in case he's caught later on. Yes, it's also possible that those cops were a bit overzealous, and targeting someone for nothing. The statements they made about his suspicious behavior, though, lead me to believe he wasn't as innocent as he proclaims.

Now, all that said, the "mutt" comment was completely uncalled for. There isn't a need for a cop to insult someone like that, even if the person is a criminal. it isn't professional, and causes people to dislike the police, even if they are otherwise doing a good job.

On the program itself, I don't see it as a bad thing IF, and ONLY if, they follow the law. Meaning, there should be a real reason to suspect the person (such as them basically watching every move of the cops...). A real reason. There is suspicious behavior, and if the police see that, they should check it out. As for a search, that should only be done if there is clear probable cause. Meaning they had better have a valid reason, an honest reason, to search a person. Seeing what looks like a drug transaction, for example, would be a good reason. Acting nervous about the police could be a reason to stop a person, but not necessarily for a search. Now, if a person agrees, it's legal. There is when knowing your rights comes into play. You can refuse a search. I would, on principle, and I am no criminal. If they want to search, they need a reason, a probable cause. if the program is being carried out in a legal manner, great. if not, it should be changed. Review is certainly in order. if they are on the up-and-up, they should have nothing to hide.

No matter what the case, we have to be fair to both sides, and look at the real evidence, not the propaganda, which is what I see the video as. Yes, there are some bad cops, because cops are people, and they can fail the same as anyone else. That doesn't mean that they are all bad, though, or that every cry or "racism" is real. In this case, the mutt comment would seem to be racist. Whether the stop was or not, I don't think we have enough evidence to say.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

*snip*They stop random people then frisk them for no reason.*snip*

You're always shilling for the worst things imaginable, anti-wikileaks, pro-murderous military, *snip*

I don't know a thing about who this kid is or what his background may be. Stop and Frisk is one thing, but it's that personal touch and attention he gets too. It would appear, very personal and individual. Now the kid sure as heck isn't going to tell anyone if he's sitting as a suspect on..say a sex offense, or a killing. Who knows?

Uh, his experience is normal. Just listen to the videos I posted at the bottom of page 1.


No, cops like to harass minorities, all over the USA. They also work on quotas, so if they can set them off on a frisk and get an arrest, it means career mobility for them. Did you not watch the video? Multiple ex-police officers admitted this.

It isn't quite that simple. The police cannot search a person legally without probable cause. They can legally search if they do have probable cause. The question in these cases is, how often do they actually have it? We cannot simply assume that there isn't a cause on the word of some people who were searched. Criminals typically lie. We have to look at the actual data. On the same token, we cannot assume the cops are always honest, either. Some are not. Evidence only, for these cases. There should be a detailed report for every stop, every search, with clear reasons given. There is a great deal of room for abuse in such a situation, and we MUST be sure to review any such cases and insure that they remain legal.

Kindly define "pro-murderous military" for me, will you? Since I am a veteran, and married to a career soldier, I would be most interested in your definition of your chosen term. Plus, just because someone states that all cops and military are not NWO thugs doesn't make that person a "shill". It makes them a logical and reasonable person. In fact, I will go so far as to say that those assuming all cops are evil, and all military are murderers, etc, are as bad as any racist. I thought we were supposed to be above classifying all members of any given group in the same way.

No, his experience is not "normal". His claim is common, but that doesn't mean it is honest or factual, just because he says so. The idea that a person can accuse people of racism and it's automatically assumed to be true isn't in line with the principles on which this country was founded. How about "innocent until proven guilty"? One comment, that might have been racist, isn't enough to claim the entire stop was racist.

As for "multiple ex-police officers" admitting to anything, all we saw were unidentified people claiming to be ex-police. We have no proof of who they are. Quotas are an issue; there we agree, but I do not believe that the police target minorities. Flat do not buy that. In fact, the cases I personally know about (things that happened to people I know) where a cop was out of line ALL involved whites. Every single case. A bad cop is a bad cop, and will target anyone. That the police stop more people in high crime areas, and that those areas happen to be mostly black or hispanic in ethnicity, doesn't mean the cops are racist; it means they are going where the most criminal activity occurs. Now, they still should follow the Constitution, and should not be searching people without REAL probable cause, and I will always protest that sort of thing, but assuming it's all about race isn't accurate.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by DustbowlDebutante
Maybe I have missed something here.

But it seems to me that when the state of Arizona tried to legislate something along these lines, the federal government jumped all over it, calling it racial profiling and suing the state to keep them from implementing it.

But in New York, this is being done without a peep from the federal government. Why is that? In both instances it appears to me that it really boils down to the same thing: harrassing minorities.

So why hasn't the federal government sued about this going on in NY?

Am I completely confused about what is going on in these two places?

Is it somehow holier to do this in NY than it is in AZ?

Have to comment here, and explain the star. Very valid point, and you are correct; this is being treated very unevenly. The reason, in my opinion, is simple, though I know many will disagree.

Quite simply, it's the race card game. In Arizona, they want to crack down on the very real problem of illegal aliens (they are NOT immigrants). The current government wants support from the hispanic community, so they scream and yell and protest and call Arizona racist. In New York, they want the votes of the rich, so they support anything that targets poor, crime-ridden areas. Then, they encourage people to complain and play the race card, stating that this is all about race, so they can try and blame it on the other party. In both cases, it's about manipulating the minorities in question, and trying to get them to their side of things. Unfortunately, a lot of people fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

In the real world, the police should be able to "profile" if there is a VALID reason to do so. Yes, even based on race. Before anyone jumps, listen to my point. I am not saying that the cops should assume someone is a criminal simply based on their race. I am saying that if they are looking for criminals that fit a certain description, they should be able to target people that fit said description. If there was, for example, a report of skinheads attacking people, or stealing cars, or whatever, the police would not be out of line to focus more attention on white males with very short hair. Nor are they racist if looking for illegals from Mexico, and focusing on hispanics. Or for watching minorities in a high crime neighborhood, when most IN said neighborhood are minorities. You focus on those that fit the description. Or that display real suspicious behavior. Someone casing a neighborhood is suspicious. Someone watching the cops closely is suspicious. I am all for the Constitution, and I want such stops to be valid. However, I won't assume they are not because some people complain.

I remember too many cases where people claimed racism, and none existed. Such as the older man in California (I think) that shot a couple of guys that were breaking into his neighbor's home. He came out, they moved to attack him, and he shot them. Their families were all over the news, claiming it was racist, that they did nothing wrong, etc. Not their neighborhood, clearly breaking in, and the old man wasn't charged with a crime. Didn't stop the accusations. We have to be sensible.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:54 AM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Dynamike

What part of "stop and frisk" don't you understand? He was stopped because they have a policy of stopping and frisking people at random. If they see someone they suspect might have drugs or a weapon they stop and frisk them.*snip*

So, they atop and search people they suspect of having drugs or weapons.....that sounds like "probable cause" to me.....thus legal. If, of course, they actually have a reason to suspect the person has something illegal. That isn't exactly "random" if they have such a reason. The real question, then, would seem to be, "Do they have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of said person?". If so, it's normal police work. If not, it's a bid for power and control. In any case, I stand by my earlier comment that this should be under strict review, to be sure it's all legal. I do know that I don't trust Bloomberg. His sticking his nose into what people want to eat and drink is beyond ridiculous, and the guy needs to mind his own business.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:50 AM
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

I like how you say, "I'm all for the constitution" and "people watching the cops closely" are suspicious (and therefore have no 4th amendment rights) in the same paragraph. Also, by your reasoning, when a white male commits a crime (shocker - it happens) all random white males should be stopped and frisked.

There must be a lot of old fashioned police work going on in NYC to have "suspicion" of 1,800 people everyday carrying guns or drugs. That is a lot of investigative work to build "suspicion".

edit on 23-10-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in