[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Que sera sera. Like I said, if I don’t mind being stopped, then they shouldn’t either unless they are less than law abiding. I see minorities on the news all the time clamoring to make their neighborhoods safer. If it takes a minute of inconvenience, so be it. And if the law abiding minorities object, then they have made their own bed

Except a senior who is white probably is not going to treated like an African American of 35 or under at a stop by police.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Except a senior who is white probably is not going to treated like an African American of 35 or under at a stop by police.

....and would an African America senior of 70 be treated the same as one that is 35?

[thelegges]

Farmer did a radio spot, that 2,000 responded calls were a non issue from inadequate alarm systems or lack of ability to use them correctly. Stated it would save lives if you knew how to operate your system. Thinking 2,000 calls this year, and yet I haven’t noticed many Leo car’s driving around. Maybe they are in stealth mode

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Caymus

....and would an African America senior of 70 be treated the same as one that is 35?

That would probably depend on where he was and what his relationship to the people in the community was over time.

I doubt, for instance, if some Wildwood, FL African-American leader of 70 or so would be pulled over quickly by any one in that community who knows that community. Details are very important.

And if you pushed back that scenario to the 1930s, it would be a different story.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Except a senior who is white probably is not going to treated like an African American of 35 or under at a stop by police.

So what? A white senior is a whole lot less likely to be dealing crack or be carrying an illegal weapon. Remember Willie Sutton? When asked why he robbed banks his reply was “because that’s where the money is “

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So what? A white senior is a whole lot less likely to be dealing crack or be carrying an illegal weapon. Remember Willie Sutton? When asked why he robbed banks his reply was “because that’s where the money is “

Willie Suttton used disguises to carry out bank robberies. Willie Sutton — FBI

He did not want to be noticed.

[Two Bills]

No fear of stop and search in our village.
The last policeman spotted here just got lost on his way to MacDonald's.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Choose one of the following:
1. Someone's privilege is showing
2. Someone hasn't thought this through
3. Someone is quite comfortable giving up their fourth amendment rights

For me, I don't see a difference between stop & frisk, randomly stopping and searching cars, or knocking on your door at 9PM and searching your house. Some would say, "if you have nothint to hide.." but I don't agree with that. While I would like criminals off the streets and out of society, I'm not willing to give up my constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches.

No thinking person would want to live in a police state.“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin. The police have been moved away from a more proactive approach , traffic stops, street stops ( two different things) the police have gotten the message and are doing less of both, unfortunately those municipalities in the forefront of this are becoming places less and less attractive to live or do business, with all classes of crime showing a great increase some have discussed having the police stop enforcing minor traffic laws all together, in Chicago they don't like the idea of the police to chase people on foot, what is the cop to do? let'em go , not going to be much in the way of any punishment if and and when there is a conviction anyway, why would a police officer put themselves at risk, answer your calls, write reports,, no worries

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

No thinking person would want to live in a police state.“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin. The police have been moved away from a more proactive approach , traffic stops, street stops ( two different things) the police have gotten the message and are doing less of both, unfortunately those municipalities in the forefront of this are becoming places less and less attractive to live or do business, with all classes of crime showing a great increase some have discussed having the police stop enforcing minor traffic laws all together, in Chicago they don't like the idea of the police to chase people on foot, what is the cop to do? let'em go , not going to be much in the way of any punishment if and and when there is a conviction anyway, why would a police officer put themselves at risk, answer your calls, write reports,, no worries

Exactly. We can have effective policing without having a police state. But the bleeding hearts and the grievance industry need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Exactly. We can have effective policing without having a police state. But the bleeding hearts and the grievance industry need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior

No one wants to live in a police state, especially old, white guys living in the Villages in the Free State of Florida.

On the other hand, a heavy police presence in the cities is a great idea. You can't go wrong heavily policing brown people.

That phrase is quite ironic after reading the excuses for stop & frisk abuses. I guess the "criminal" in the behavior is in the eye of the beholder.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

No one wants to live in a police state, especially old, white guys living in the Villages in the Free State of Florida.

On the other hand, a heavy police presence in the cities is a great idea. You can't go wrong heavily policing brown people.

That phrase is quite ironic after reading the excuses for stop & frisk abuses. I guess the "criminal" in the behavior is in the eye of the beholder.

Why does every discussion these days devolve into a lecture on racism? The reason there is no need for stop and frisk in TV is bc there is very little crime in TV, not bc TV happens to be mostly white. The reason it works in big cities is bc that's where they have a crime problem. Is crime a problem of cities themselves or of the racial demographics of those cities? I'm going with it's a problem of big cities, exacerbated by decades of stupid policy and corruption. And it has been made even worse by recent attempts to cease actually prosecuting crimes. If you don't enforce laws, criminals flourish.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Exactly. We can have effective policing without having a police state. But the bleeding hearts and the grievance industry need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior

Yep. Some of the stuff that gets discussed, passed and implemented seems like carte blanche for criminals to operate.

One of the issues (one of many) as I see it, is that the standards are so loosely defined, especially "reasonable suspicion". The most cogent explanation of that which I was able to find is "Stop and frisk law must be based on more than whimsy but less than probable cause; it must be based on (1) reasonable suspicion, (2) good cause to believe, and (3) articulable suspicion" (U.S. DOJ website, Office of Justice Programs). But even here it all comes down to how one defines "reasonable", and I'll bet a dollar to a donut that your average Villager is going to have a far different definition of that term than, say, your average inner city twentysomething who lives close to, or actually within, an area with significant gang/drug activity taking place.

One tries to stay away from racial stereotypes, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of gang/drug activity is conducted by youth gangs, and the simple fact alone that inner-city populations tend to be heavily minority means that odds are pretty good that there are going to be minority youths and young adults carrying illegal firearms in those areas. But it is not just guns. "Authorities throughout the country report that gangs are responsible for most of the serious violent crime in the major cities of the United States. Gangs engage in an array of criminal activities including assault, burglary, drive-by shooting, extortion, homicide, identification fraud, money laundering, prostitution operations, robbery, sale of stolen property, and weapons trafficking."(Justice dot gov, National Drug Intelligence Center). Given all that, then, it seems more reasonable to stop and frisk certain minority youths and young adults in or near those areas, especially at night, than it would, say, to stop and frisk a Caucasian guy in a suit getting into his car after fueling it up, or an Asian grandmotherly type walking down the street with a bag of groceries. The guy in the suit and the Asian granny would have legitimate beefs about being randomly stopped and frisked. The minority youths and young adults in or near those areas of drug/gang involvement? Not so much.

I know it sounds draconian and unacceptable to the advocates and activists, but in my opinion stop-and-frisk is NOT an imposition on the rights of persons, especially youths and young adults, living in heavily minority high-crime areas. It would seem like "reasonable suspicion" is a fact of life in such places. Not involved in gangs or drugs? No criminal history? Then no worries. After a couple of stops the cops are going to have a pretty good idea of who is and who is not likely to be carrying something that he or she shouldn't be, and react accordingly. But in crime-infested areas such as being discussed here, it is, or should be, something that the people living there just have to accept.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Why does every discussion these days devolve into a lecture on racism? The reason there is no need for stop and frisk in TV is bc there is very little crime in TV, not bc TV happens to be mostly white. The reason it works in big cities is bc that's where they have a crime problem. Is crime a problem of cities themselves or of the racial demographics of those cities? I'm going with it's a problem of big cities, exacerbated by decades of stupid policy and corruption. And it has been made even worse by recent attempts to cease actually prosecuting crimes. If you don't enforce laws, criminals flourish.

Agreed. It’s not racism. If purple Norwegians were committing the majority of crimes, then the police should be focusing on purple Norwegians. This is what most countries do. Unfortunately, in the US it has been termed “profiling” and given a negative connotation. Well, if it saves innocent lives, the grievance morons can insert it you know where

[Dlpdo]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Didn’t realize carrying illegal weapons or drugs was a constitutional right. I’m more than happy for a police officer to stop me if it gets more criminals off the streets

Given it is overtly obvious that the writer is not talking about illegal weapons and guns I assume your reply was written just to be nasty. You may be willing to give up your protection against being searched for no reason without a warrant but I would guess most people wouldn’t.

[Dlpdo]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So if I’m white and don’t mind getting stopped and frisked to help deter the criminals, why should someone with darker skin mind unless they have something to hide????

The old if I feel this way then everybody else should feel this way and have the same opinion as I do and if they don’t they must be guilty of something argument. Sad, just sad.