Stop and Frisk doesnt go far enough

[Pete7469]

Stop and Frisk is a subset of a Terry Stop. It requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place (To stop) and the officers have to have a reasonable and articulated suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous (To frisk).

I have to admit ignorance here, since I haven't read into it or done any research. I'm just going off what I've heard. So if the cops have a REASONABLE suspicion to stop someone, and REASONABLE cause to search them I can't be against it of course. Otherwise I'm opposed to people being stopped for merely walking down a street and being forced to show ID and subject themselves to questions and searches. That's just plain tyranny in my mind.

However the whole issue of "possessing illegal weapons" rubs me the wrong way. If it wasn't for the draconian gun laws in the first place, NYC never would have had such an abundance of criminals.

No shame in being ignorant here. The Supreme Court has so many rulings on the issue it's easy to get confused. According to the case law there are essentially 3 types of police encounters:

1) Mere encounter - no suspicion or P.C needed. Police can ask you questions but cannot search and you are free to go if you choose.

2) Investigatory stop - A police officer needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place. He may detain you and is limited to stop and frisk searches if he has a reasonable and articulated belief that his safety is in danger. If he does such a frisk, he can only search for weapons, though if drugs are found, they are legally found. (Makes so much sense doesn't it?). you are not free to leave

3) Custodial detention - Basically you are under arrest or "seized" according to the Fourth ammendment and the officer requires Probable cause. You are not free to leave.

I think it's arguable about whether the Investigatory stop is actually supported by the Fourth Amendment as it's essentially something established through caselaw. But as of today that is the law.

The problem with NYC Police is they are trying to turn mere encounters into investigatory stops.

That's the impression I got also. The officers walk up and say "hello", and the "subject" being "anxious to break contact" becomes "probable cause" to conduct an "investigation".

In my much younger days wandering city streets at night, I was once stopped by 2 cops on foot. They immediately demanded ID, I showed it to them, they asked a few questions and then let me go about my business. I was cooperative and polite, but rather perturbed. I don't think this "Your papers please" mentality of some LEO's is appropriate in a free country.

 

[Pete7469]

Bolded: False

Second Bolded: Give an excuse and its all good. Bullshit

Third Bolded: To prevent possible crimes of course. Crimes aren't only things you are afraid of. White collar crime is just one crime. Are you pretending there aren't Drugs and Weapons aren't on Wall Street?

So why are you afraid to check? You want it to continue.

You are obviously illiterate concerning 4th amend jurisprudence. Google "Terry stop".

You are obviously illiterate concerning every issue you comment on. Google "Dry All Night".

There, fixed it for you.

 

[martybegan]

How many times can you post while ignoring it? Lets count...that's 2.

There is debate on the stop & frisk law in other threads. Personally I am not 100% decided on the topic itself. If you want to discuss the merits of stop & frisk, one has other posts where that can occur. Your post was specifically about some idiocy about stoping and frisking wall street people, which is nothing more than typical class warfare bullshit, that has nothing to do with the crime issue in poor neighborhoods.

I am commenting on your idiocy agreeing to and posting the drivel you linked, not on the merits of stop & frisk.

I know...you like me?

In the manner a dog likes his favorite chew toy.

 

[Pete7469]

There is debate on the stop & frisk law in other threads. Personally I am not 100% decided on the topic itself. If you want to discuss the merits of stop & frisk, one has other posts where that can occur. Your post was specifically about some idiocy about stoping and frisking wall street people, which is nothing more than typical class warfare bullshit, that has nothing to do with the crime issue in poor neighborhoods.

I am commenting on your idiocy agreeing to and posting the drivel you linked, not on the merits of stop & frisk.

I know...you like me?

In the manner a dog likes his favorite chew toy.

As many times as you've buried him, that's an appropriate analogy.

 

[Avatar4321]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)

Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.

If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.

Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.

Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.

Wow look at you being all for government oppression. ..

So my argument to not subject suspects to white collar crime to stop and frisk is me being for government oppression?

 

[Avatar4321]

I have to admit ignorance here, since I haven't read into it or done any research. I'm just going off what I've heard. So if the cops have a REASONABLE suspicion to stop someone, and REASONABLE cause to search them I can't be against it of course. Otherwise I'm opposed to people being stopped for merely walking down a street and being forced to show ID and subject themselves to questions and searches. That's just plain tyranny in my mind.

However the whole issue of "possessing illegal weapons" rubs me the wrong way. If it wasn't for the draconian gun laws in the first place, NYC never would have had such an abundance of criminals.

No shame in being ignorant here. The Supreme Court has so many rulings on the issue it's easy to get confused. According to the case law there are essentially 3 types of police encounters:

1) Mere encounter - no suspicion or P.C needed. Police can ask you questions but cannot search and you are free to go if you choose.

2) Investigatory stop - A police officer needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place. He may detain you and is limited to stop and frisk searches if he has a reasonable and articulated belief that his safety is in danger. If he does such a frisk, he can only search for weapons, though if drugs are found, they are legally found. (Makes so much sense doesn't it?). you are not free to leave

3) Custodial detention - Basically you are under arrest or "seized" according to the Fourth ammendment and the officer requires Probable cause. You are not free to leave.

I think it's arguable about whether the Investigatory stop is actually supported by the Fourth Amendment as it's essentially something established through caselaw. But as of today that is the law.

The problem with NYC Police is they are trying to turn mere encounters into investigatory stops.

That's the impression I got also. The officers walk up and say "hello", and the "subject" being "anxious to break contact" becomes "probable cause" to conduct an "investigation".

In my much younger days wandering city streets at night, I was once stopped by 2 cops on foot. They immediately demanded ID, I showed it to them, they asked a few questions and then let me go about my business. I was cooperative and polite, but rather perturbed. I don't think this "Your papers please" mentality of some LEO's is appropriate in a free country.

I agree. They can ask you questions in a mere encounter but you are constitutionally free to leave. If you are ever in that situation again I would just ask if you are under investigation for some reason and if so what. If they cant answer those then just tell them you're exercising your right not to talk to them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Stop and frisk is a bullshit law.

Americans should be able to travel freely in this country without being subjected to search without a warrant. I don't even buy "probable cause".

If NYC wants to live in an oppressive soviet state, there's one in North Korea. If they want to stop criminals from hurting/killing people, they need to arm themselves and kill violent aggressive sociopaths.

Then you will need to ammend the Fourth amendment because it clearlly allows probable cause arrests & searches.

I just question the modern interpretation of "probable cause". I doubt the framers envisioned "probable cause" as loosely as it's applied in many cases. The zeal for catching drug users and dealers has made living in some cities intolerable.

Victim: Hey what are you doing?
Police: I have suspicion you're doing something
Victim: Why?
Police: Because I have suspicion
Victim: You said that already
Police: I have suspicion...its all good

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)

Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.

If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.

Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.

Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.

Wow look at you being all for government oppression. ..

So my argument to not subject suspects to white collar crime to stop and frisk is me being for government oppression?

Why do you keep saying white collar crime. Frisk white people because they can commit crimes or be involved in illegal activity too. Whats the problem?

 

[Pete7469]

No shame in being ignorant here. The Supreme Court has so many rulings on the issue it's easy to get confused. According to the case law there are essentially 3 types of police encounters:

1) Mere encounter - no suspicion or P.C needed. Police can ask you questions but cannot search and you are free to go if you choose.

2) Investigatory stop - A police officer needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place. He may detain you and is limited to stop and frisk searches if he has a reasonable and articulated belief that his safety is in danger. If he does such a frisk, he can only search for weapons, though if drugs are found, they are legally found. (Makes so much sense doesn't it?). you are not free to leave

3) Custodial detention - Basically you are under arrest or "seized" according to the Fourth ammendment and the officer requires Probable cause. You are not free to leave.

I think it's arguable about whether the Investigatory stop is actually supported by the Fourth Amendment as it's essentially something established through caselaw. But as of today that is the law.

The problem with NYC Police is they are trying to turn mere encounters into investigatory stops.

That's the impression I got also. The officers walk up and say "hello", and the "subject" being "anxious to break contact" becomes "probable cause" to conduct an "investigation".

In my much younger days wandering city streets at night, I was once stopped by 2 cops on foot. They immediately demanded ID, I showed it to them, they asked a few questions and then let me go about my business. I was cooperative and polite, but rather perturbed. I don't think this "Your papers please" mentality of some LEO's is appropriate in a free country.

I agree. They can ask you questions in a mere encounter but you are constitutionally free to leave. If you are ever in that situation again I would just ask if you are under investigation for some reason and if so what. If they cant answer those then just tell them you're exercising your right not to talk to them.

Highly unlikely.

Back then I wore long hair and leather jackets. That's "probable cause" alone for some cops to suspect marijuana trafficing.

I stay away from cities as much as possible now, and with my current profile cops tend to treat me as if I'm on the same team. Which I am basically.

 

[DailyPolitrix.]

Frisky Business - Jessica Williams - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/13/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

NYPD should stop and frisk ... on Wall Street

“If anything, stop-and-frisk doesn’t go far enough,” asserted Williams, who claimed to be reporting from “one of New York’s most crime-ridden neighborhoods.”

No, she wasn’t in East New York or Hunts Point, but rather Wall Street – or, as she called it, “The White Bronx" or "Business Harlem.”

“Frankly, John, I don’t feel safe here. And I would like to see the police do their freaking jobs and start stopping people down here,” she said angrily.

Oliver countered that Williams was unfairly calling for "the arbitrary harassment of anyone on Wall Street.”

But she clarified she was only targeting people likely to be white-collar criminals: “You know, walking around in tailored suits, slicked-back hair, always need sunscreen, if you know what I’m saying.”

“If you don’t want to be associated with white-collar crime, maybe you shouldn’t dress that way,” she added. “It’s OK, I can say that. Some of my best friends are white men in suits.”

As a white man in a suit, Oliver objected to the negative stereotyping of his demographic, but Williams stuck to her assertion that “white-collar crime is disproportionately committed by people who fit a certain profile.”

“If you are, say, a white, Upper East Side billionaire with ties to the financial community like Michael Bloomberg, you just gotta accept getting roughed up by the police every once in a while,” Williams concluded.

Typical liberal response to a real problem, i.e. crime in poor neighborhoods.

1. Propose some dumb equivalency,
2. Feel good about yourself for sticking it to the man
3.Go back to hanging with your hipster friends and pretending to be ironic.

Meanwhile the real problem doesnt go away.

Stop and Frisk doesn't stop crime. I thought conservatives would be against Nazi tactics . You must be one of those McCain "conservatives".

 

[ClosedCaption]

No shame in being ignorant here. The Supreme Court has so many rulings on the issue it's easy to get confused. According to the case law there are essentially 3 types of police encounters:

1) Mere encounter - no suspicion or P.C needed. Police can ask you questions but cannot search and you are free to go if you choose.

2) Investigatory stop - A police officer needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place. He may detain you and is limited to stop and frisk searches if he has a reasonable and articulated belief that his safety is in danger. If he does such a frisk, he can only search for weapons, though if drugs are found, they are legally found. (Makes so much sense doesn't it?). you are not free to leave

3) Custodial detention - Basically you are under arrest or "seized" according to the Fourth ammendment and the officer requires Probable cause. You are not free to leave.

I think it's arguable about whether the Investigatory stop is actually supported by the Fourth Amendment as it's essentially something established through caselaw. But as of today that is the law.

The problem with NYC Police is they are trying to turn mere encounters into investigatory stops.

That's the impression I got also. The officers walk up and say "hello", and the "subject" being "anxious to break contact" becomes "probable cause" to conduct an "investigation".

In my much younger days wandering city streets at night, I was once stopped by 2 cops on foot. They immediately demanded ID, I showed it to them, they asked a few questions and then let me go about my business. I was cooperative and polite, but rather perturbed. I don't think this "Your papers please" mentality of some LEO's is appropriate in a free country.

I agree. They can ask you questions in a mere encounter but you are constitutionally free to leave. If you are ever in that situation again I would just ask if you are under investigation for some reason and if so what. If they cant answer those then just tell them you're exercising your right not to talk to them.

White people

Ask a black guy what happens when you start questioning Authority.

Why isn't it good for Wall Street but ok for everyone else? Profiling isn't effective on white guys?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Madison said he has met many police officers through his job and his participation boxing in the annual Guns-N-Hoses charity fundraiser. But he said he did not know the officers who stopped him.

“The officer jumped out and says, ‘What are you doing throwing your hands up at us?’” Madison said. “He is talking to me as he is coming toward me. I tried to explain, but I couldn’t get a word in edgewise.”

He said the officer’s angry attitude made him feel angry and alone.

“It was like everything had disappeared, and I was there alone and I got scared,” he said.

UPDATE: Firefighter says he waved at police and was handcuffed and threatened | PDF » Evansville Courier & Press

 

[velvtacheeze]

Conservatives think "Black Guy Walking" is a crime. The reason conservatives are considered racists is because they defend racist policies, like the unneeded stop & frisk.

 

[Plasmaball]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)

Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.

If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.

Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.

Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.

Wow look at you being all for government oppression. ..

So my argument to not subject suspects to white collar crime to stop and frisk is me being for government oppression?

You didnt get the point then of the op..how typical. ..

 

[martybegan]

Conservatives think "Black Guy Walking" is a crime. The reason conservatives are considered racists is because they defend racist policies, like the unneeded stop & frisk.

Considering most crime in those areas is black on black, its not white people who need to worry about a gun to the back, or thier plasma TV getting boosted, its other black people.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Sure, I'll say it.

Stop and Frisk is bad law, bad law enforcement, and a violation of the Constitution.

The police should only be able to frisk you if they are arresting you. Any police officer or police force that frisks 200 people per arrest is not frisking on cause. They are frisking for other reasons.

I don't care how crime ridden a neighborhood is, a person has the right to walk down the street without being stopped by the police and shook down.

It's bad law enforcement and all it does it cause bad feelings, hatred, and fear of the police. It doesn't do anything to foster good relationships with the people who are being stopped.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Conservatives think "Black Guy Walking" is a crime. The reason conservatives are considered racists is because they defend racist policies, like the unneeded stop & frisk.

Considering most crime in those areas is black on black, its not white people who need to worry about a gun to the back, or thier plasma TV getting boosted, its other black people.

Then why is mostly whites who are so butt hurt about the policy being done away with by court order? The days of "harass young men of color" are over in NYC and the lives of young black men will instantly get better.


"Black guy walking" is not a crime. Get over it.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Conservatives think "Black Guy Walking" is a crime. The reason conservatives are considered racists is because they defend racist policies, like the unneeded stop & frisk.

Bloomberg is no Conservative, but is rather Liberal and he is the strongest voice for Stop and Frisk.

You need to re-evaluate your statement.

 

[martybegan]

Frisky Business - Jessica Williams - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/13/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

NYPD should stop and frisk ... on Wall Street

Typical liberal response to a real problem, i.e. crime in poor neighborhoods.

1. Propose some dumb equivalency,
2. Feel good about yourself for sticking it to the man
3.Go back to hanging with your hipster friends and pretending to be ironic.

Meanwhile the real problem doesnt go away.

Stop and Frisk doesn't stop crime. I thought conservatives would be against Nazi tactics . You must be one of those McCain "conservatives".

I have consitutional reservations, but the state of certain neighborhoods in the city and the prolictivity of certain people in those neighborhoods to have illegal drugs/weapons makes me hesitant to reject stop and frisk out of hand.

And its actually Libertarians that would be 100% against stop and frisk sans warrant or observable crime.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Conservatives think "Black Guy Walking" is a crime. The reason conservatives are considered racists is because they defend racist policies, like the unneeded stop & frisk.

Considering most crime in those areas is black on black, its not white people who need to worry about a gun to the back, or thier plasma TV getting boosted, its other black people.

Exactly and Wall Street has crime but you're against crime fighting certain locations