[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Again, your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless UNTIL IT ACTUALLY IS YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. It is so, so easy to say, "if I were in that position," when you know full d*** well you AREN'T, AND LIKELY NEVER WILL BE, in that position. (If you are the exception, fine, but we will never know)

Target criminals all you like. Not every single brown person in the city is or was a criminal yet they are who were targeted by stop and frisk.

And again I say SO WHAT. Much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone’s feelings because they felt targeted. Don’t want to be targeted? Start obeying the law.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Again, your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless UNTIL IT ACTUALLY IS YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. It is so, so easy to say, "if I were in that position," when you know full d*** well you AREN'T, AND LIKELY NEVER WILL BE, in that position. (If you are the exception, fine, but we will never know)

Target criminals all you like. Not every single brown person in the city is or was a criminal yet they are who were targeted by stop and frisk.

There are now many elected and appointed officials who share your concerns and have redefined how the police operate these changes that have no bearing on ones Constitutional rights but discourage and curtail the street cops curiosity having resulted in making large section of many cities affected unlivable and other sections unsafe , this is evident by the families and businesses leaving those jurisdictions, just what probable cause is for a street stop depends on many factors and are so determined by the courts, When NY started "stop and frisk" I did not research it but from little I heard I did not think it would stand a court challenge, from what I know of "probable cause", current changes are not helping anyone but causing more problems

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And again I say SO WHAT. Much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone’s feelings because they felt targeted. Don’t want to be targeted? Start obeying the law.

Do you read what you write? You don't care whether they obey the law. You don't care whether there are taillights are actually broken if stopping everyone finds some drugs. By your own words you don't care that 88% of the people you stop are innocent / have done nothing wrong / are not breaking the law, you want to stop them anyway because it is "much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone's feelings.."

I feel I completely understand what your position is. I don't share it and I doubt I ever will.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

There are now many elected and appointed officials who share your concerns and have redefined how the police operate these changes that have no bearing on ones Constitutional rights but discourage and curtail the street cops curiosity having resulted in making large section of many cities affected unlivable and other sections unsafe , this is evident by the families and businesses leaving those jurisdictions, just what probable cause is for a street stop depends on many factors and are so determined by the courts, When NY started "stop and frisk" I did not research it but from little I heard I did not think it would stand a court challenge, from what I know of "probable cause", current changes are not helping anyone but causing more problems

Unfortunately, the pendulum has always swung too far in this country.

Too much crime? Toughen up policing.
Tough policing results in abuses? Prosecute the police.
Prosecute the police for tough policing? Work slowdowns by the police.
Less policing? Crime increases.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

What we need are ways to get tough on crime that don't result in high levels of collateral damage. And, we need the community to recognize that the police are trying to make a difference without harming the non-criminals. Today we can't have those nice things.

[Cybersprings]

I have to agree with the folks that I ususally spend my time disagreeing with. Just like I don't think that law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights infringed because of the horrible behavior of criminals, I do not believe that law abiding citizens should have their 4th amendment rights violated because of the horrible behavior of criminal. All we have to do is start prosecuting the criminals that are apprehended. If we prosecute shoplifting and all of the other smaller crimes instead of ignoring them, I think you will be amazed at how much all crime will go down. Criminals commit crimes. Prosecute them instead of excusing them and things will get better.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Unfortunately, the pendulum has always swung too far in this country.

Too much crime? Toughen up policing.
Tough policing results in abuses? Prosecute the police.
Prosecute the police for tough policing? Work slowdowns by the police.
Less policing? Crime increases.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

What we need are ways to get tough on crime that don't result in high levels of collateral damage. And, we need the community to recognize that the police are trying to make a difference without harming the non-criminals. Today we can't have those nice things.

Start prosecuting accused criminals.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Do you read what you write? You don't care whether they obey the law. You don't care whether there are taillights are actually broken if stopping everyone finds some drugs. By your own words you don't care that 88% of the people you stop are innocent / have done nothing wrong / are not breaking the law, you want to stop them anyway because it is "much better to save lives than to worry about hurting someone's feelings.."

I feel I completely understand what your position is. I don't share it and I doubt I ever will.

So you are intransigent and on the wrong side of the issue. That’s okay, I can accept that.

[Rainger99]

Interesting study (and podcast) on whether the police discriminate.


Proof That Law Enforcement Does Not Discriminate Against Blacks | Power Line

[Polarlys]

Stop & Frisk ??? Let's call it what it really was. Stop and talk to. Then FRISK if this momentary interview seemed / felt suspicious. No self respecting cop would even consider frisking every person stopped. The local street patrol officer knew his neighborhood and could spot the evil doers and suspicious persons in a heartbeat. A quick sudden interview will most often trip up those with nefarious intentions and lead to further inquiry and then and only then to the dreaded bad word " The Frisk". Stopping this purposeful practice surely led us down this rabbit hole we're poking around in now and sadly we'll never get a do over. So we're stuck with what we got

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

I have to agree with the folks that I ususally spend my time disagreeing with. Just like I don't think that law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights infringed because of the horrible behavior of criminals, I do not believe that law abiding citizens should have their 4th amendment rights violated because of the horrible behavior of criminal. All we have to do is start prosecuting the criminals that are apprehended. If we prosecute shoplifting and all of the other smaller crimes instead of ignoring them, I think you will be amazed at how much all crime will go down. Criminals commit crimes. Prosecute them instead of excusing them and things will get better.

I know, right. I too have to agree with people who report me and call me names. Wait, let us say that THEY agree with US. Maybe that will feel a bit better

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by Whitley

Start prosecuting accused criminals.

A few years of Sharia law could work!

[Byte1]

So a police officer sees something/someone that appears suspicious to him and stops him/her for a moment to talk to them (and get a better idea if his "gut" feeling is warranted). For his own safety, he does a "Frisk" NOT a search. In my opinion, that's reasonable.
How many folks on here travel via airports and have to walk through an Xray machine? How many put their belongings on a belt, including their shoes so that they can be "searched" prior to flying? Some would say that this is voluntary, since they do not have to fly. Really? Is walking down the street not voluntary?
How about walking into a hospital where you must walk through a metal detector? How about federal buildings? Are these searches violations of the 4th Amendment?
How about random traffic stops, where drivers are stopped by random road blocks and the police are searching for DUI violations? Or drugs?
Do you wish to live safely in your homes or do you want to or need to install special security systems in your home? Would you feel safer in your home if a police officer stopped someone taking a walk at 2am in your neighborhood? Perhaps you would wonder why he didn't stop the dog walker at the same time period?
Profiling is something done all over the world. Profiling has been proven to be a successful tool in law enforcement. Like it or not, it works for the majority of decent folks. As long as there are criminal deviants in society, there will be limitations upon one's liberties and freedoms.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So a police officer sees something/someone that appears suspicious to him and stops him/her for a moment to talk to them (and get a better idea if his "gut" feeling is warranted). For his own safety, he does a "Frisk" NOT a search. In my opinion, that's reasonable.
How many folks on here travel via airports and have to walk through an Xray machine? How many put their belongings on a belt, including their shoes so that they can be "searched" prior to flying? Some would say that this is voluntary, since they do not have to fly. Really? Is walking down the street not voluntary?
How about walking into a hospital where you must walk through a metal detector? How about federal buildings? Are these searches violations of the 4th Amendment?
How about random traffic stops, where drivers are stopped by random road blocks and the police are searching for DUI violations? Or drugs?
Do you wish to live safely in your homes or do you want to or need to install special security systems in your home? Would you feel safer in your home if a police officer stopped someone taking a walk at 2am in your neighborhood? Perhaps you would wonder why he didn't stop the dog walker at the same time period?
Profiling is something done all over the world. Profiling has been proven to be a successful tool in law enforcement. Like it or not, it works for the majority of decent folks. As long as there are criminal deviants in society, there will be limitations upon one's liberties and freedoms.

Be careful, you are dangerously close to arguing for a gun ban with that statement.

As to your other points, entering an airport terminal, a hospital building, or a government building are all situations where you are entering specially protected areas. You don't need to enter those areas, you chose to enter those areas. You aren't simply going about your life, you are accessing some non-public space. While I cringe every time I go through those security checkpoints, I can't argue that they violate my rights.

Walking down the street, just existing in the world, is not accessing some non-public space or entering a specially protected area. Walking down the street is a case of "if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone!" This doesn't mean if I have the same skin tone as the guy you expect might possibly do something wrong sometime in the future. It doesn't mean I look like someone who might be up to no good. If I'm not doing something wrong then leave me alone.

Yes, I am against any and all BS random traffic stops. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone. I don't care what you think, expect, or hope I might be doing, if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.

No, I don't want you to stop the dog walker but I also don't want you to stop me just because you find my insomnia odd. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.

A frisk IS a search by any definition of the word. The only reason to perform a frisk is to determine if someone is carrying something. It IS a search of the person.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Be careful, you are dangerously close to arguing for a gun ban with that statement.

As to your other points, entering an airport terminal, a hospital building, or a government building are all situations where you are entering specially protected areas. You don't need to enter those areas, you chose to enter those areas. You aren't simply going about your life, you are accessing some non-public space. While I cringe every time I go through those security checkpoints, I can't argue that they violate my rights.

Walking down the street, just existing in the world, is not accessing some non-public space or entering a specially protected area. Walking down the street is a case of "if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone!" This doesn't mean if I have the same skin tone as the guy you expect might possibly do something wrong sometime in the future. It doesn't mean I look like someone who might be up to no good. If I'm not doing something wrong then leave me alone.

Yes, I am against any and all BS random traffic stops. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone. I don't care what you think, expect, or hope I might be doing, if I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.

No, I don't want you to stop the dog walker but I also don't want you to stop me just because you find my insomnia odd. If I'm not doing anything wrong then leave me alone.

A frisk IS a search by any definition of the word. The only reason to perform a frisk is to determine if someone is carrying something. It IS a search of the person.

And once again I say “so what”. Maybe the police just stopped the next mass murderer or serial killer. But let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And once again I say “so what”. Maybe the police just stopped the next mass murderer or serial killer. But let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings

Just never going to agree with "so what" as a reaction to someone's Constitutional rights being violated.