Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Carrying A Condom As A Woman In NYC Might Get You Locked Up!

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 





Nope. It's a violation of the 4rth amendment.

Yes!
It is a pure and simple fishing expedition when they stop and frisk. Very easy for them to profile racially or by age, too.

It is bad enough that a pizza place can't deliver a 2 liter bottle of soda with your pie.




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 





you live here? you've seen them stop and frisk?


No, but I personally know people that do and have heard stories. Plus there are the statistics FROM the NYPD saying how many people they've stopped. Plus the recordings and first hand stories of it happening on youtbe.








The NYPD last night released a report on its controversial stop-and-frisk procedure that breaks down by precinct — and by race — those who’ve been targeted.

The figures, all from 2011, show the precinct with the most stops by sheer numbers was Brooklyn’s 75th, which includes East New York and Cypress Hills.

More than 31,000 people were stopped, 97 percent of them either black or Hispanic.

Brooklyn’s 73rd Precinct, covering Brownsville, was the next highest, with 25,167 stops. About 98 percent involved minorities.

The 115th Precinct — which includes East Elmhurst, Corona and Jackson Heights in Queens — ranked third, with 18,156 stops. Nearly 93 percent of those involved minorities, the figures show.

The 40th Precinct in The Bronx, which covers Mott Haven and Melrose, racked up the next highest number — 17,690 — with 98.5 percent involving minorities.

And at No. 5 was the 90th Precinct in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, where there were 17,566 stops, with 88.6 percent involving minorities.

The New York Civil Liberties Union had fought for release of the stats last year

As has been reported, the statistics show that overall, nearly 90 percent of those targeted by NYPD stop-and-frisks in the city in 2011 were either black or Hispanic.

Blacks and Hispanics together make up less than 53 percent of the city’s population.

A total of 685,724 people — 8.6 percent of the city’s population — were detained by cops for “reasonable suspicion.”

That was the highest number since the NYPD started recording stop-and-frisk figures in 2002, according to the NYCLU.

Of that number, 9 percent were white, and 4 percent Asian, the figures showed.
.

www.nypost.com...




I've lived here my whole life. I have never once seen them stop anyone. I've seen bag check stations in subways and never once have I seen them stop anyone to check a bag.


The world doesn't revolve around you and what you've seen. NYC is a huge city, the NYPD has released the statistics of how many people they've searched above. It's a huge amount and nearly all minorities.

I can only assume you're white, middle aged, or live in a non-ghetto area.


edit on 7-3-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
A ridiculous amount of innocent people being harassed.


An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 4 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports:

In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
267,468 were black (53 percent).
147,862 were Latino (29 percent).
53,500 were white (11 percent).
247,691 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).


In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
243,766 were black (54 percent).
141,868 were Latino (31 percent).
52,887 were white (12 percent).
223,783 were aged 14-24 (48 percent).


In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
275,588 were black (53 percent).
168,475 were Latino (32 percent).
57,650 were white (11 percent).
263,408 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).


In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
310,611 were black (55 percent).
180,055 were Latino (32 percent).
53,601 were white (10 percent).
289,602 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).


In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
315,083 were black (54 percent).
189,326 were Latino (33 percent).
54,810 were white (9 percent).
295,902 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).

In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
350,743 were black (53 percent).
223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
61,805 were white (9 percent).
341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).

In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 533,042 times
473,300 were totally innocent (89 percent).
286,684 were black (55 percent).
166,212 were Latino (32 percent).
50,615 were white (10 percent).



www.nyclu.org...
www.nyclu.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 





If you are standing around in an area known for a high volume of drug vendors or prostitutes, you might be questioned but, honestly, if you aren't selling drugs or yourself (or looking to buy), why would you stand around in an area known for these kinds of crimes?


I don't know, maybe because there is a whole population of Americans who live and are born in high crime areas? That doesn't mean that they are criminals, as you can see, as admitted by the NYPD 9/10 of the people frisked are innocent.

There could be an 18 year old girl walking home in an area known for prostitution, she sees a friend walking by and starts talking to him, the cops stop and frisk her, look through her purse and find condoms.She could be arrested and life potentially ruined.


There are two types of prostitution arrests. For "prostitution," the officer has to witness you making an offer, but "loitering for the purposes of engaging in a prostitution offense" requires only circumstantial evidence. On the supporting depositions, officers answer a checklist. Were you standing in an area known for prostitution? According to Karina Claudio, a lead organizer at the community group Make the Road, these areas can be anywhere. Were you dressed provocatively? Did you speak to a guy? Were you standing next to someone who has been arrested for prostitution? Were you carrying condoms?


www.vice.com...

It's a creepy pre-crime law anyway.

Imagine if there were a "occupying store for purposes of engaging in shoplifting" law. And if you could be charged with a crime for walking around a store with a large bag or coat, looking suspicious, and conversing with previously convicted shoplifters.

I didn't know cops were psychic and could predict future crimes.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bacardi
OP, don't you understand? You must use the official Government policy of abortion to rid yourself of unwanted pregnancy. Then, once you murder your unborn child, nobody cares what diseases you pick up... eugenics is alive and well.

And prostitution?! How dare you OP?! You know Government can't tax that!
edit on 7-3-2013 by Bacardi because: (no reason given)


Ummm extremist darling. The prostitutes do not carry condoms to prevent pregnancy in the first place it is to prevent the spread of disease. These women are using oral contraceptives along with condoms for safety reasons but hey use any platform you can get to spread your anti-choice message. Sheesh, there is a time and place for everything.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
*
edit on 7-3-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

This is THE LAW



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.

Any questions?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival

This is THE LAW



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.

Any questions?


Are you aware that it falls under probable cause?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival

This is THE LAW



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.

Any questions?


Wonder how, what is

unreasonable
is decided.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 





Monica Gonzalez is a nurse and a grandmother. In 2008, Officer Sean Spencer arrested her for prostitution while she was on the way to the ER with an asthma attack. The condom he found on her turned out to be imaginary. Gonzalez sued the city after the charges were dropped. But if the condom were real, why should she have even been arrested at all?


Kind of confused, I get the condom part, but if she was having an asthma attack and heading to emergency care...how was she hanging around 30 mins and talking to at least one guy passing by?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


the hanging around part, and chatting with someone, whilst supposedly having an asthma attack and heading to the hospital would translate into probable cause but that isn't the point, it's that she had a condom and that is why she was arrested.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by rival

This is THE LAW



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.

Any questions?


Are you aware that it falls under probable cause?


..."no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." A search is permissible ONLY upon warrant
by a JUDGE. The "probable cause" is the evidence supported by oath or affirmation presented before
the issuing judge.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by rival

This is THE LAW



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.

Any questions?


Wonder how, what is

unreasonable
is decided.


It's decided by the SCOTUS.

To me "unreasonable" should be interpreted simply as "without reason." And then referring back
in context a person should not be violated "without reason" and only upon probable cause presented
to a judge for warrant.
edit on 7-3-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by rival

This is THE LAW



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.

Any questions?



Wonder how, what is

unreasonable
is decided.


It's decided by the SCOTUS.

To me "unreasonable" should be interpreted simply as "without reason." And then referring back
in context a person should not be violated "without reason" and only upon probable cause presented
to a judge for warrant.
edit on 7-3-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)


SCOTUS says it is not unreasonable and that is the only opinion that counts.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 





it's that she had a condom and that is why she was arrested.


If she could be arrested for prostitution for being in possession of a condom then she should have accused the officer of rape. After all, he was in public with the equipment to do it wasn't he.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bacardi
OP, don't you understand? You must use the official Government policy of abortion to rid yourself of unwanted pregnancy. Then, once you murder your unborn child, nobody cares what diseases you pick up... eugenics is alive and well.

And prostitution?! How dare you OP?! You know Government can't tax that!
edit on 7-3-2013 by Bacardi because: (no reason given)


How can you kill something thats unborn? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it now?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The arrest wasn't for condoms....it was for loitering with the suspicion of prostitution. I don't agree with the whole thing, but lets be honest here; she wasn't locked up because she had a condom on her persons. We keep focusing on this and the Government surely will begin to erode basic 4th Amendment principles since the people have no concept of law or how it is applied.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
looking at how most girls dress today i can see some old cop mistaking them all for whores.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
The more I read of this thread, the more I'm reminded of the similarities between the us and those bat $ hit Muslim countries where women are only allowed out if they're wearing a sack.

It's getting stupid and at this rate, ordinary people won't be able to walk more than a couple of steps before being harassed by some salad dodging idiot in a uniform.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by anton74
 


SCOTUS is not GOD! We have leaders here, NOT rulers (except for the measuring devices). If I remember correctly, there is something called 'Reasonable Articulate Suspicion' which must be established. There is also the 9th amendment.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

edit on 3/8/2013 by WAstateMosin because: Punctuation/error
edit on 3/8/2013 by WAstateMosin because: (no reason given)









 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join