Exactly the kind of excuses that are devolving us into anarchy. ALL people should follow the same laws and no one should invent excuses for bad behavior. I don’t care if someone is poor or had no father. My father was in that situation and he didn’t deal drugs or pimp or shoot people. And almost all tragic police interactions have been the result of resisting arrest and not following the instructions of the police. Enough with excuses and frisk away

To me, those two statements are contradictory.

Stop and Frisk was just encouraging officers in NYC to frisk suspicious persons when they stopped them to question them in order to protect the police officer. If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is or might have an intention of committing a crime, the officer stops and question that person, in an attempt to prevent a crime. The frisk part is actually to protect the officer from harm. In NYC, it became the mantra(?) for getting illegal weapons off the street, but in reality it stopped a lot of criminal activity. Or, at least postponed the criminal acts. A police officer may search your vehicle to the extent of within arms reach of the driver when he stops you for a violation. Arms reach includes glove compartment, under you seat and in the center console. I do not know the SOP for each state, but the judges have allowed this procedure in many states.
I've never been frisked(searched) but I don't believe it would harm me. And since I support law enforcement, I do not wish to handicap their unappreciated job by hindering their ability to do that job.

Except that with some it is just while walking as a minority. Or driving. Or sleeping.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Looks like it's time for a remedial vocabulary lesson:

What's "sad, just sad" is 26 people shot, 6 fatally in Chicago just this past weekend alone. I wonder if you would feel the same way about stop and frisk if you were one of these victims or their families?

What's possibly "nasty" is when I point out that anyone thinks posts regarding stop and frisk are "overtly and obviously" unrelated to the thread on reduced police stops increase homicides needs a refresher in reading comprehension. And btw, in most jurisdictions, the police do not needs a search warrant when they have stopped someone on the street for suspicious activity or an observed infraction.

True.

Increased police stops do two things: 1. They get contraband (guns, drugs, whatever) off the streets, AND 2. The very likelihood of being stopped and frisked means in my opinion that criminals will be less likely to carry said contraband in public in the first place.

I am on the side of protecting our rights, however we really need to address the issue brought up concerning why a small percent of the population is responsible for a large percent of crime. We ignore it, and it does no one any good. Talking about it is a positive. No one wants to send their kids to failing schools, fear for the safety of their kids walking to school, be concerned about gangs like MS13 and Latin Kids getting involved with their children. It needs to be honestly discussed.

Totally agree. However when "honest discussion" is defined as "hate speech", you have a...well...problem. We live in a country, and in a time, where the tail routinely wags the dog.

Absolutely. But using exaggerated statistics doesn't help the credibility of the argument and some of the attitudes expressed in this thread are counter to what this country is supposed to be all about. I have spent time in countries where *I* was the one who could be stopped and frisked for simply walking down the street - it's not where we should want this country to go.

In concept, stop and frisk might work. In practice, it seemed to use race alone as a "suspicious activity" and generated some ugly statistics. If we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 14 of them.

There has to be a way but I sure don't know what it is and I'm concerned that no one else has discovered it yet.

Where is the exaggeration that 13% of the population commit about 50% of the homicides and 60% of the violent crimes?

(actually about 1/2 of that number, since the majority of the homicides/violent crimes are committed by males...)

I remember the numbers given as 76% and 12% but I haven't gone back to check. The actual numbers are surprisingly hard to find.

I agree with a lot of what you have posted in this thread. However, how can you say the statistics are exaggerated if you don't know the "real" statistics?

Pretty sure you meant Latin Kings but, not being a gangbanger myself, I can't be sure.

Because everything I *have* found looks more like 35% and 18%. Still over represented but by a factor of two not six.

I will try again to find a good source for clear numbers.

We are already splitting into sides. Most agree we need honest discussion, but then throw out words like hate speech. Is saying 6% of the population is responsible for a far higher percent of violent crime than their number (6%) hate speech?. If we do not say the difficult, uneasy things we will never make headway and people will continue to be preyed on by gangs, criminals, and overzealous policing. Talk about getting it from all sides. The good people who want none of it. Feelings are VERY strong on all sides. We shouldn't avoid the subject and we should not discourage speech on the matter. Case in point, I received an infraction from TOTV for the earlier post.

14 out of 10,000??? Talk about exaggerated statistics. Again, if most of the crimes were committed by purple Norwegians, stopping 10,000 of them would probably yield 8500+ violations. Stopping 10,000 80 year old white women would yield zero. Stop calling it racism. Stop making excuses for criminal behavior and whatever else the bicoastal elitist eggheads dream up and focus on catching the criminals and ideally changing the culture that nurtures them. The people who live in these slums want to be safe as well. Let’s help them out and frisk their kids

Yes, weapons recovered at a rate of 14 individuals for every 10,000 stops as reported in two sources. All citations, arrests, weapons, etc at a rate of 1,210 (I believe) out of every 10,000 stops.

I'm looking up violent crime statistics now and will find the sources for these numbers later.

*** Anyone else interested in helping with this research, please feel free

Regardless, they are so far out of balance that it shows a problem...

Oh, THOSE numbers you believe, but the numbers I cited are "inflated"? SMH...

I wasn't disputing your numbers yet since they are closer to what I have been able to find so far.

Most statistics can be found or verified online. Numbers that are tossed out with no sourcing, including mine, should be taken with a grain of salt. I am in the process now of finding confirmation and will provide the sourcing when I do. So far I am using the FBI crime statistics and US Census bureau population statistics - I hope those will be considered reliable.

[QUOTE=Pugchief;2238708]Pretty sure you meant Latin Kings but, not being a gangbanger myself, I can't be sure.[/Q

Did I really say kids. That is funny. Yes Kings

FBI crime statistics
US Census Bureau data

In 2019 (most recent data available):
White:

• 76% of population
• 46% of murders
• 59% of violent crime (rape, robbery, aggravated assault)
• 59% of combined (murder numbers are small compared to the rest)

Black:

• 13% of population
• 51% of murders
• 36% of violent crime
• 36% of combined

So 76% and 12% wasn't close, 50% and 13% was close for murders, and 30% and 18% was close for violent crime.

My stop and frisk numbers were not quite right. I can't find the article that told me 14 out of 10,000 but other articles don't agree. It appears the number should be 1.6% of stops resulted in seizure of weapons. 12% of stops resulted in an arrest of some sort, and 88% of the people stopped were completely innocent.

Then, out of every 10,000 searches:

• 160 individuals were carrying weapons
• 1,200 people were arrested
• 8,800 people were determined to be acting suspiciously and were stopped and searched and found to be innocent

Again, when we are talking about violating an individual's constitutional rights, if we truly feel that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," then we cannot accept a system that interferes with the rights of 10,000 citizens in order to remove weapons from 160 of them.

A little over 10% were arrested for some violation, that does not automatically mean the remainder were not doing something to arouse the interest of a police officer

Thank you for proving my point. Murder 4 times higher than the representative percentage of population. 1200 arrests/10,000 stops. (Yes, I had posted 6x and could probably find that citation if I looked, but not a relevant difference)That is far MORE successful than I had dreamed. And does anyone consider getting briefly stopped as “suffering”? It’s the victims and families that suffer.