[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Pballer

Unless you were black or Latino, NYC police wouldn't stop and frisk you. Seeing as you are villager and 99.99% of villagers are white, I can see how you might not mind stop and frisk since it would not affect you. The Constitution is supposed to protect everyone from unreasonable searches, not just citizens who are in the majority.

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????

[golfing eagles]

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.

If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, would that search be unreasonable?

[Pballer]

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????

Because it's their constitutional right. Sad that many people never learned civics in school. Sad that immigrants who become US citizens know more about civics than native born Americans.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, would that search be unreasonable?

The accusation was that "suspicious manner" included simply being present on the street while black or brown. I believe at least one judge agreed that was the case.

I don't want to be stopped and frisked, have my vehicle searched, or have my home invaded because an officer felt my behavior was "suspicious." If I don't want it happening to me then I can't be okay with it happening to someone else.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Pballer

Because it's their constitutional right. Sad that many people never learned civics in school. Sad that immigrants who become US citizens know more about civics than native born Americans.

If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, it constitutes probable cause. End of civics lesson

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The accusation was that "suspicious manner" included simply being present on the street while black or brown. I believe at least one judge agreed that was the case.

I don't want to be stopped and frisked, have my vehicle searched, or have my home invaded because an officer felt my behavior was "suspicious." If I don't want it happening to me then I can't be okay with it happening to someone else.

Sorry, but just being there is not suspicious. But apparently the grievance industry was able to parlay that into a lame excuse to end an effective policing tool

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Sorry, but just being there is not suspicious. But apparently the grievance industry was able to parlay that into a lame excuse to end an effective policing tool

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it swims like a duck and it smells like a duck then sure, you could make an argument that it really is a hippopotamus in disguise.

The grievance industry looked at the data and the data told the story. I have no interest in researching all the statistics but the few that I've seen indicated that weapons were found in about 14 out of every 10,000 stops for "suspicious activity" and there was some kind of fine, arrest, or seizure of a weapon in only about 1,200 out 10,000 stops. If your "suspicious activity" sensor fails 88% of the time and is only effective at removing weapons 0.14% of the time then that sensor is seriously broken.

Was it an effective policing tool? I don't believe the numbers will back that up in an objective way. Subjectively, sure, harassment is an effective tool. But that goes back to my initial post: Is it okay because you know as a white man it won't affect you? Is it okay because you haven't thought about how else it might be used? Or, is it okay because you don't value your fourth amendment rights?

[Joe V.]

Stop and frisk is the result of a "reasonable suspicion ".

"Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officer should be allowed to stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate. Unlike probable cause that uses a reasonable person standard, reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer."

- The Law Dictionary, featuring Black's Law, 2nd edition

Originally Posted by Pballer

Stop and frisk proved that you can reduce crime by violating people's constitutional rights.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it swims like a duck and it smells like a duck then sure, you could make an argument that it really is a hippopotamus in disguise.

The grievance industry looked at the data and the data told the story. I have no interest in researching all the statistics but the few that I've seen indicated that weapons were found in about 14 out of every 10,000 stops for "suspicious activity" and there was some kind of fine, arrest, or seizure of a weapon in only about 1,200 out 10,000 stops. If your "suspicious activity" sensor fails 88% of the time and is only effective at removing weapons 0.14% of the time then that sensor is seriously broken.

Was it an effective policing tool? I don't believe the numbers will back that up in an objective way. Subjectively, sure, harassment is an effective tool. But that goes back to my initial post: Is it okay because you know as a white man it won't affect you? Is it okay because you haven't thought about how else it might be used? Or, is it okay because you don't value your fourth amendment rights?

You want data? How about 76% of violent crimes are committed by a demographic that is 12% of the population. I’ll continue to support our law enforcement officers, thank you

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

You want data? How about 76% of violent crimes are committed by a demographic that is 12% of the population. I’ll continue to support our law enforcement officers, thank you

And that is your justification for stopping black and brown people at a rate of one stop for every resident every year with an arrest rate of less than 1%? I believe that thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place.

I support the LEOs when they abide by the L. Law enforcement already have enough authorizations to harass citizens without overstepping the law. When they go beyond that then they do not deserve our support. When laws are enforced in an unconstitutional manner then they do not deserve our support. Going further, when legislatures enact laws with no concern for the Constitution or that are clearly unconstitutional then they do not deserve our support.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And that is your justification for stopping black and brown people at a rate of one stop for every resident every year with an arrest rate of less than 1%? I believe that thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place.

I support the LEOs when they abide by the L. Law enforcement already have enough authorizations to harass citizens without overstepping the law. When they go beyond that then they do not deserve our support. When laws are enforced in an unconstitutional manner then they do not deserve our support. Going further, when legislatures enact laws with no concern for the Constitution or that are clearly unconstitutional then they do not deserve our support.

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

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

[Byte1]

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.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, it constitutes probable cause. End of civics lesson

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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