I think Blackstone meant that it was better to let ten guilty people go free rather than convict an innocent person.

This was at a time that England had more than 200 crimes where the punishment was death so a wrongful conviction had severe consequences.

I don’t think Blackstone was referring to stop and frisks as the penalty for stopping and frisking an innocent person does not have the same impact as executing an innocent person.

So just a minor violation of the constitution and then only in 88% of the cases.

We're not going to agree on this. Maybe we call it a glass 12% full and 88% empty situation.

My rights are protected by the same government that protects the rights of black people in the city. Those not committing crimes in the city are no less innocent, no less deserving of freedom than I am. If the government can find exceptions for taking away their rights today then there is nothing stopping the government from taking away my rights tomorrow - nothing.

The original post asked whether fewer police stops increase the number of homicides. Did you answer the question? The studies indicate that murders go up.

How many innocent black people should be killed because you don’t want to stop and frisk?

Is it better that 10 innocent people be stopped and frisked to prevent an innocent person from being killed?

And didn’t the government take away our rights during Covid? They closed churches but allowed liquor stores and Home Depot to remain open and they also allowed huge crowds to protest in the summer of 2020.

But it’s not a glass, it’s a stacked deck. Those 12% go on to commit heinous crimes and rack up a body count but you want to balance that with the 88% that are inconvenienced for 2 minutes. Sorry, this is not a level playing field. Do you think it is unfair if you are stopped for a broken taillight but the officer finds 10 kg of crack? Would you have your undies in a bunch if they only seized 10 kg from 1200 out of every 10,000 stops?

Most violent crimes are committed by men. So let's just round up all the men, search and frisk, get search warrants to check their houses, take away their guns since clearly men are violent criminals whose purpose in life is to create problems for everyone else.

Also, MOST violent crimes committed in Kentucky, are committed by citizens of Kentucky. So let's just put walls up around Kentucky and let them Darwin themselves out of existence. Then we can take the walls down and more civilized people can move in and take over.

Furthermore, most black violent criminals do -not- have the name Jim-bob. So let's just mandate that all black women must from now on name their sons Jim-bob. That will surely solve the problem.

If in those 10,000 stops for broken taillights it was found that 8,800 times there was no broken taillight then absolutely I would consider that unfair and would argue against it.

If the error rate of "acting suspiciously" is 88% then someone needs retraining on how to detect suspicious activity. I don't know what an acceptable error rate is but it ain't 88%!

Your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless until it is YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. Perspectives change significantly when it is the observer who is "inconvenienced."

I grew up in a small town. “Where they take care of their own”. A cop would take a drunk home. No DUI that cost $5,000 and your license. If a neighborhood kid got out of line his father would take care of the situation. Every boy had a pocket knife and took it to school but you would fight with your fist not with a knife or gun. Oh, all boys had BB guns and there were less sparrows around to crap on Dad’s car. There was much more that went on in my small town but no need to say more to make a point. Yep, those were the good ol’ days!

If they stopped me every day for just walking down the street and that saved even a single life, then I’d have no objections. I’d even buy the officers a donut and a cup of coffee. If I lived in a crime ridden white neighborhood and they stopped me just for being white, I’d thank them for their service. It’s only whiny grievance race mongers and bicoastal elitist eggheads supported by the biased media that drives this ridiculous narrative. You can’t decrease crime without targeting the criminals
Something tells me that there would be less objections if they targeted Wall Street investment bankers in 3 piece suits to search for cocaine

That’s so ridiculous it doesn’t rate a reply

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Start prosecuting accused criminals.

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

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


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

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

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

A few years of Sharia law could work!:icon_wink:

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.

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.

Interesting how you bring back the racial issue that was not even referenced in my post. You say, that you do not have to enter the hospital or airport, but you HAVE TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AT 3am? You don't like being stopped if you aren't doing anything wrong? Remember, driving is a privilege NOT a right. You don't like? I doubt anyone likes being interrupted when they are about their business, but that's life and if our courts are not going to prosecute evil then our first line of defense (besides ourselves) is local law enforcement. Don't you just hate standing in line to make a purchase? I have been in countries where folks did not stand in line. Hated it, but it was their country.
Sometimes we have to live with certain curbed or infringed liberties. That's life.

I've read the constitution of the United States of America. I don't remember the part where a person acting in a suspicious manner is immune from being stopped by law enforcement. What country's constitution are you referring to?????

You are reading it wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the individual, the Constitution limits the rights of the Government. Don't look for "suspicious manner" as something a person can do and still keep his rights, look at it as something the Government can use to take away his rights.

You won't find "suspicious manner" anywhere in the Constitution of the United States - it is not grounds for the Govt to take away anyone's rights.

In particular, you should be looking at the 4th Amendment. That amendment mentions probable cause, not suspicious manner. And while it doesn't characterize "unreasonable," I can't believe a policy with an 88% error rate could ever be acceptable.

As for the rest, I have no desire to rehash the last 106 posts. Post #93 seems to sum things up pretty well.

You never answered the original question.

Do fewer police stops increase homicides?

I think you are wrong. It does grant rights to the individual.

This is from archives.gov.

It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion.

In the language it uses, the Constitution guarantees rights by restricting Govt.
"Congress shall make no law..."
"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
"No soldier...shall be quartered...without the consent of the Owner..."
"The right of the people to be secure...shall not be violated..."
"No person shall be held to answer...."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution does not say that the Govt is all powerful but here are some rights we will grant to the people.

The Constitution says the rights belong to the people unless stated otherwise. It lists some specific examples of what Govt cannot do but then makes it clear that the list is not complete.

I never argued the point. Post #23 touches on an acknowledgment and post #94 seems to be in agreement.

I have not taken the time to look at the studies and draw a conclusion. I am not against stopping criminals (though I appreciate being allowed to drive 5mph over the limit) but the stops and the actions after have to be legal and not violate the rights of those who were stopped.

What about the rights of the innocent victims of some lowlife that could have been stopped but wasn't because their feelings might be hurt, or they felt "targeted" or "profiled"?????? The framers of our constitution were much more concerned with limiting government power over LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not criminals.

Rights that protect the innocent from incarceration, cruel punishment, Miranda rights----fine. Preventing the police from using their professional instincts to INVESTIGATE a particular situation---not so much.

There was a news show with a segment about casino security officers in Vegas. They asked one of them what he looks for. The answer was "I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it. Some things are just out of place." And this was just protecting the profits of a casino. Shouldn't we allow our professional law enforcement officers the same latitude to save lives. I just can't balance the inconvenience of being stopped and asked a few questions with injury and death from dangerous criminals.

When those professional instincts are wrong 88% of the time then those instincts should not be used as justification for anything. Also, see post #93.

Again, SO WHAT.
I don't care if 99% of the stops yield nothing---that 1% will probably prevent a violent crime.

And that's what some people don't get----the balance is serious injury or death versus "Wah, wah, wah, the police only stopped me because I'm a purple Norwegian" Get over it.

Answer: Yes but at a cost that many find unreasonable (Generally violation of the 4th Amendment)

I am fortunate that I have never lived in a high crime neighborhood where you have to be concerned for your life - or the life of your wife and kids - when they just run down to the grocery store and I assume that most of the people living in the Villages have not lived in high crime neighborhoods. If I had lived in a high crime area, I would want a heavy police presence in my neighborhood and I would probably support police stopping certain people.

It might impact various ethnic groups differently. However, a recent study in Minnesota found that blacks represent nine times more criminal offenders overall and 10 times more serious offenders than whites. So if you are looking for suspects, I would expect that you would focus on certain groups and not focus on other groups.

It is easy for people who live in the Villages to support ending stop, search, and frisk. It won't impact our lives so we get the bonus of virtue signaling without bearing the consequences of our policies. However, I suggest that you also show some concern for poor people living in high crime neighborhoods. The elderly grandmother who is afraid to go out during the day; the kids who are afraid to go to the park; the husband who is afraid to walk in his neighborhood at night.

A recent study found that the majority of residents in low-income “fragile communities” — including both urban and rural areas — want more police presence, not less. In the more than a dozen low-income urban areas surveyed, 53% of residents want more police presence while 41% want the same — only 6% want less. I think we know who the 6% are.

I agree that it is a balancing act. Does the inconvenience of an innocent person being stopped for a few minutes outweigh the deaths of many innocent people?

Correlation does not equal causation. While yes, you can "prove a negative," you can't prove a non-existing thing without a doubt.

In other words -

An increase in homicides can't be - without a doubt - be attributed to fewer police stops. The two might be happening concurrently, but one can't be attributed to the other. In fact, it could be just the opposite: maybe because there are more homicides, the police have less time and fewer resources to do stops. You can't prove that either, without a doubt. But it is evident of the logical fallacy of creating causation based only on correlation.

The 4th Amend. says ".....unreasonable searches and seizures..." Maybe you have a different definition of "unreasonable" than I do. I consider a police officer frisking someone because they fit within his/her suspicious nature at the time of night or day and the place that person is in the area to be reasonable. If a young man is on his bike, delivering a pizza at 5pm in a neighborhood, I would not consider that "reasonable." However, if that same person was walking down the street at 3am in the same neighborhood, it might be "reasonable" to stop and question his intentions and identify him in case something untoward happens. In that case, the officer would be prudent in frisking said person for his own safety. That's my opinion. Now, if we deny that right to the police officers, then we would be limiting a police presence and h tying their hands behind their back at to their job when we are hoping that we are safe in our homes. Just because someone abuses a right does not mean that everyone should suffer that does not abuse their rights.

DeBlasio was a disaster.
Who votes for these disasters??