Stop and Frisk doesnt go far enough

[ClosedCaption]

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.

WTF?

There you go making sense and other annoying stuff

 

[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.

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

And those people get convicted, unless of course like the other occupy nutters you equate ANYTHING that has to do with Wall street as a crime. In that case I suggest you alter your meds, as they are clearly not adequate.

Stopping and frisking some banker isnt going to stop crime. stopping and frisking suspicious people in a poor crime ridden neighborhood might.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

This is how you lose your rights. Why don't you just say "It may violate rights but they aren't my rights so who cares?"

Then when you have TSA shit on the street don't cry about it like you're doing with the Patriot Act. Try not to be stupid first. Don't complain about it after you waved the flag because it wont stop on that street.

If you think so, you're playing checkers...

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

And those people get convicted, unless of course like the other occupy nutters you equate ANYTHING that has to do with Wall street as a crime. In that case I suggest you alter your meds, as they are clearly not adequate.

Stopping and frisking some banker isnt going to stop crime. stopping and frisking suspicious people in a poor crime ridden neighborhood might.

Why not Bankers don't commit crimes? They don't use Nose Candy there? Why because they look nice?

You know the types, they look a certain way...All I'm saying is frisking them makes them safer and stops crime. They fit a profile

 

[martybegan]

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.

This is how you lose your rights. Why don't you just say "It may violate rights but they aren't my rights so who cares?"

Then when you have TSA shit on the street don't cry about it like you're doing with the Patriot Act. Try not to be stupid first. Don't complain about it after you waved the flag because it wont stop on that street.

If you think so, you're playing checkers...

There is a difference between stopping and frisking everyone (as per the TSA at airports) and stopping and frisking someone who, in the judgement of police is acting sucpicous. I'm not a fan of blindly trusting police to do the right thing 100% of the time, but to say that the police can NEVER do this ignores plenty of precedent.

The issue alot of people on the right have is with the concept at all. From the left it seems the issue is the area specific targeting. Its almost like you would be OK with it if some white people got it done to them to make everything fair. This is, of course, a waste of reasources. The fact is areas that this is done are high crime.

That being said, i do lean towards saying you need concrete reasons to frisk someone, and maybe some guidelines would be nice. I can also see scrapping it entirely.

Of course progressives are all for laws that remove 2nd amendment rights. I find it comical they are such strong supporters of 4th amendment rights at the same time.

 

[martybegan]

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

And those people get convicted, unless of course like the other occupy nutters you equate ANYTHING that has to do with Wall street as a crime. In that case I suggest you alter your meds, as they are clearly not adequate.

Stopping and frisking some banker isnt going to stop crime. stopping and frisking suspicious people in a poor crime ridden neighborhood might.

Why not Bankers don't commit crimes? They don't use Nose Candy there? Why because they look nice?

You know the types, they look a certain way...All I'm saying is frisking them makes them safer and stops crime. They fit a profile

Are you stuck in the 1980's? Cocaine using wall street yuppies?

Update your schtick a bit there guy.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Is it true that prominent gay rights activists are proposing mandatory anal probes of any suspicious- looking characters?

...or is it just left wing propaganda?

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Wow the brilliant humor of the bit went way over your head.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And those people get convicted, unless of course like the other occupy nutters you equate ANYTHING that has to do with Wall street as a crime. In that case I suggest you alter your meds, as they are clearly not adequate.

Stopping and frisking some banker isnt going to stop crime. stopping and frisking suspicious people in a poor crime ridden neighborhood might.

Why not Bankers don't commit crimes? They don't use Nose Candy there? Why because they look nice?

You know the types, they look a certain way...All I'm saying is frisking them makes them safer and stops crime. They fit a profile

Are you stuck in the 1980's? Cocaine using wall street yuppies?

Update your schtick a bit there guy.

Gave up already huh?

Good

 

[R.C. Christian]

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.

Stop and frisk is not a Terry stop. It doesn't meet constitutional requirements and the pigs involved should be sued in civil court.

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).

They stop people on the the street for no reason. That's not a Terry stop. They abuse the hell out of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Because I read what you posted. Did you?

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Since when are only blacks stopped and frisked? Defendents, black, white or otherwise, challenge authority and win all the time. Otherwise, no one would ever win suppression hearings.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

This is how you lose your rights. Why don't you just say "It may violate rights but they aren't my rights so who cares?"

Then when you have TSA shit on the street don't cry about it like you're doing with the Patriot Act. Try not to be stupid first. Don't complain about it after you waved the flag because it wont stop on that street.

If you think so, you're playing checkers...

There is a difference between stopping and frisking everyone (as per the TSA at airports) and stopping and frisking someone who, in the judgement of police is acting sucpicous. I'm not a fan of blindly trusting police to do the right thing 100% of the time, but to say that the police can NEVER do this ignores plenty of precedent.

The issue alot of people on the right have is with the concept at all. From the left it seems the issue is the area specific targeting. Its almost like you would be OK with it if some white people got it done to them to make everything fair. This is, of course, a waste of reasources. The fact is areas that this is done are high crime.

That being said, i do lean towards saying you need concrete reasons to frisk someone, and maybe some guidelines would be nice. I can also see scrapping it entirely.

Of course progressives are all for laws that remove 2nd amendment rights. I find it comical they are such strong supporters of 4th amendment rights at the same time.

You cannot stop and frisk someone for acting suspicious. In order to do a stop and frisk you need an articulated reason to fear for your safety. They can stop you to investigate, but not frisk unless there is a reason to worry about safety

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Wow the brilliant humor of the bit went way over your head.

In order to be brilliant humor, something would have to be:

1) brilliant
2) Funny.

Being stupid qualifies for neither.

 

[Avatar4321]

Stop and frisk is not a Terry stop. It doesn't meet constitutional requirements and the pigs involved should be sued in civil court.

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).

They stop people on the the street for no reason. That's not a Terry stop. They abuse the hell out of it.

I agree the are abusing it. And I agree that isn't a legal terry stop or stop and frisk.

 

[NightFox]

Stop and Frisk doesnt go far enough

Yeah I think New York needs to adopt San Diego's policy of "Stop and Grope", although they may be required to pay a royalty to Bob Filner if they do.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This is how you lose your rights. Why don't you just say "It may violate rights but they aren't my rights so who cares?"

Then when you have TSA shit on the street don't cry about it like you're doing with the Patriot Act. Try not to be stupid first. Don't complain about it after you waved the flag because it wont stop on that street.

If you think so, you're playing checkers...

There is a difference between stopping and frisking everyone (as per the TSA at airports) and stopping and frisking someone who, in the judgement of police is acting sucpicous. I'm not a fan of blindly trusting police to do the right thing 100% of the time, but to say that the police can NEVER do this ignores plenty of precedent.

The issue alot of people on the right have is with the concept at all. From the left it seems the issue is the area specific targeting. Its almost like you would be OK with it if some white people got it done to them to make everything fair. This is, of course, a waste of reasources. The fact is areas that this is done are high crime.

That being said, i do lean towards saying you need concrete reasons to frisk someone, and maybe some guidelines would be nice. I can also see scrapping it entirely.

Of course progressives are all for laws that remove 2nd amendment rights. I find it comical they are such strong supporters of 4th amendment rights at the same time.

You cannot stop and frisk someone for acting suspicious. In order to do a stop and frisk you need an articulated reason to fear for your safety. They can stop you to investigate, but not frisk unless there is a reason to worry about safety

Like saying "I stopped you because I fear for my safety" 200 times.

Well...if you say so

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is a difference between stopping and frisking everyone (as per the TSA at airports) and stopping and frisking someone who, in the judgement of police is acting sucpicous. I'm not a fan of blindly trusting police to do the right thing 100% of the time, but to say that the police can NEVER do this ignores plenty of precedent.

The issue alot of people on the right have is with the concept at all. From the left it seems the issue is the area specific targeting. Its almost like you would be OK with it if some white people got it done to them to make everything fair. This is, of course, a waste of reasources. The fact is areas that this is done are high crime.

That being said, i do lean towards saying you need concrete reasons to frisk someone, and maybe some guidelines would be nice. I can also see scrapping it entirely.

Of course progressives are all for laws that remove 2nd amendment rights. I find it comical they are such strong supporters of 4th amendment rights at the same time.

You cannot stop and frisk someone for acting suspicious. In order to do a stop and frisk you need an articulated reason to fear for your safety. They can stop you to investigate, but not frisk unless there is a reason to worry about safety

Like saying "I stopped you because I fear for my safety" 200 times.

Well...if you say so

Well, that's what you liberals said when you passed Obamacare. As if you really cared about the health and well being of millions of people. But then again, you pass laws that condone acts of sexual assault on airline passengers...

 

[bodecea]

And those people get convicted, unless of course like the other occupy nutters you equate ANYTHING that has to do with Wall street as a crime. In that case I suggest you alter your meds, as they are clearly not adequate.

Stopping and frisking some banker isnt going to stop crime. stopping and frisking suspicious people in a poor crime ridden neighborhood might.

Why not Bankers don't commit crimes? They don't use Nose Candy there? Why because they look nice?

You know the types, they look a certain way...All I'm saying is frisking them makes them safer and stops crime. They fit a profile

Are you stuck in the 1980's? Cocaine using wall street yuppies?

Update your schtick a bit there guy.

You think that has stopped?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You cannot stop and frisk someone for acting suspicious. In order to do a stop and frisk you need an articulated reason to fear for your safety. They can stop you to investigate, but not frisk unless there is a reason to worry about safety

Like saying "I stopped you because I fear for my safety" 200 times.

Well...if you say so

Well, that's what you liberals said when you passed Obamacare. As if you really cared about the health and well being of millions of people. But then again, you pass laws that condone acts of sexual assault on airline passengers...

Did you stumble into the right thread or what?