[Byte1]

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.

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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

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?????

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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?

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

You are reading it wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the individual, the Constitution limits the rights of the Government.

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

You never answered the original question.

Do fewer police stops increase homicides?

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

You never answered the original question.

Do fewer police stops increase homicides?

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

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Whitley

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?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

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.

[Byte1]

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.

[patfla06]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

This is easy. Giuliani cleaned the city up, DeBlasio turned it back into a city run by like minded mayors. Worst thing that happened was ending stop and frisk

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