Is Stop-and-Frisk a Necessary Evil?

[Hijinx]

Stop-and-Frisk is unconstitutional and an excuse to racially profile blacks and latinos in NYC, however through that same policy the police have successfully achieved the greatest gun bust in NYC history. This will certainly be used when Bloomberg and Kelly appeal the recent ruling on this policy. It supports their intentions, but it doesn't necessarily justify their actions.

When you read passages like:

"When 3 white cops tell a black teenager that he looks out of place in a Hispanic neighborhood, where he lives, something has gone horribly wrong."

It's easy to disagree with them on the subject. Do they (or you) see this as a necessary evil to protect NY citizens, or do they (or you) not view this as evil at all? Can this even be classified as an "evil"?

For the full article check out: wearepeople2.com

 

[Cecil900]

No.

"Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both"
Ben Frankilin.

Also...where is the poll?

 

[Gipper]

Not for whites, no.

 

[Ray410]

Now that the traditional American culture has been destroyed by the devastation of Liberal "Multi-culturalism" crime control requires much more stringent measures than were required fifty years ago when most Americans didn't lock their house doors and often left their keys in their cars while shopping.

 

[TheNextEra]

Now that the traditional American culture has been destroyed by the devastation of Liberal "Multi-culturalism" crime control requires much more stringent measures than were required fifty years ago when most Americans didn't lock their house doors and often left their keys in their cars while shopping.

What a load of bull, multi-culturism does not endorse crime and this is not a necessary evil. It's plain wrong. If you are complaining about Obama being a "dictator" and increased government while endorsing "stop and frisk" I do believe that is the ultimate form of hypocrisy.

 

[Hijinx]

No.

"Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both"
Ben Frankilin.

Also...where is the poll?

Great quote!

As for the poll, did I make a mistake somewhere? I see it at the top of the page.

 

[Cecil900]

Great quote!

As for the poll, did I make a mistake somewhere? I see it at the top of the page.

I see it now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Now that the traditional American culture has been destroyed by the devastation of Liberal "Multi-culturalism" crime control requires much more stringent measures than were required fifty years ago when most Americans didn't lock their house doors and often left their keys in their cars while shopping.

While I would agree that locks only keep the "honest" folks from taking easy advantage of you, that has little to do with constitutional protection from unreasonble search/seizure by the state (and its employees). What is at the heart of the issue is what policing techniques are needed (and effective) when merely possessing things is illegal. What percentage of "hits" (arrests)would be needed to justify using this technique? What if ceasing this practice results in an increase in crime?

If one had solid intelligence of criminal activity in a given area and a general descripton of the perp(s) then is it unreasonable for police to attempt to check out that "solid lead"? Obviously that does not include telling every young black male to lie down on the street with their arms/legs spread for a pat down, but certainly observing someone handing out tiny packages on the street in exchange for cash might arouse a bit of suspicion, or seeing a vehicle making repeated passes to/from a "known" source of illegal activity.

I personally would like to see this policy/procedure used only with the "probable cause" being stated, the stop recorded (bothe officer's and the suspect's name) and the results being made public. Warrantless searches, even if done for "the greater good", are still not a good public policy, but in areas where "snitching" and cooperation with law enforcement are culturally taboo, what real alternative is offered?

 

[Deuce]

While I would agree that locks only keep the "honest" folks from taking easy advantage of you, that has little to do with constitutional protection from unreasonble search/seizure by the state (and its employees). What is at the heart of the issue is what policing techniques are needed (and effective) when merely possessing things is illegal. What percentage of "hits" (arrests)would be needed to justify using this technique? What if ceasing this practice results in an increase in crime?

If one had solid intelligence of criminal activity in a given area and a general descripton of the perp(s) then is it unreasonable for police to attempt to check out that "solid lead"? Obviously that does not include telling every young black male to lie down on the street with their arms/legs spread for a pat down, but certainly observing someone handing out tiny packages on the street in exchange for cash might arouse a bit of suspicion, or seeing a vehicle making repeated passes to/from a "known" source of illegal activity.

I personally would like to see this policy/procedure used only with the "probable cause" being stated, the stop recorded (bothe officer's and the suspect's name) and the results being made public. Warrantless searches, even if done for "the greater good", are still not a good public policy, but in areas where "snitching" and cooperation with law enforcement are culturally taboo, what real alternative is offered?

Small government, personal liberty! Unless you look like someone who may have committed a crime. (read: black or brown)

 

[ThePlayDrive]

No, stop and frisk is discriminatory and absurd and impractical. Bloomberg and his supporters should be thrown in a dungeon.

 

[Ryan5]

It's fine.

Frankly every major metro area should have this policy.



It doesn't infringe on anything. It's fine.


Heroin addicts think they're oppressed too. That doesn't mean they are.

 

[jamesrage]

Stop-and-Frisk is unconstitutional and an excuse to racially profile blacks and latinos in NYC, however through that same policy the police have successfully achieved the greatest gun bust in NYC history. This will certainly be used when Bloomberg and Kelly appeal the recent ruling on this policy. It supports their intentions, but it doesn't necessarily justify their actions.

When you read passages like:

"When 3 white cops tell a black teenager that he looks out of place in a Hispanic neighborhood, where he lives, something has gone horribly wrong."

It's easy to disagree with them on the subject. Do they (or you) see this as a necessary evil to protect NY citizens, or do they (or you) not view this as evil at all? Can this even be classified as an "evil"?

For the full article check out: wearepeople2.com

It blatantly violates the 4th amendment, it should be banned period. I don't give a **** if it stopped a handful of potential criminals.

 

[Ikari]

Stop-and-Frisk is unconstitutional and an excuse to racially profile blacks and latinos in NYC, however through that same policy the police have successfully achieved the greatest gun bust in NYC history. This will certainly be used when Bloomberg and Kelly appeal the recent ruling on this policy. It supports their intentions, but it doesn't necessarily justify their actions.

When you read passages like:

"When 3 white cops tell a black teenager that he looks out of place in a Hispanic neighborhood, where he lives, something has gone horribly wrong."

It's easy to disagree with them on the subject. Do they (or you) see this as a necessary evil to protect NY citizens, or do they (or you) not view this as evil at all? Can this even be classified as an "evil"?

For the full article check out: wearepeople2.com

It's just another way for government to expand its power against the people and o mint or and database us better.

 

[danarhea]

Here is the deal.......

The Republican Party is like your overbearing dad who wants to kick your ass when you don't do what he wants you to.

The Democratic Party is like your overbearing mom who wants to love you and squeeze you to death.

They are two sides of the same coin, and many Republicans and Democrats both like stop and frisk. It gives Republicans the power to kick your ass when they feel like it, and gives Democrats the power to squeeze you to death.

How about a little parenticide of the political variety? Don't vote for Republicans or Democrats. :mrgreen:

 

[Bodi]

Stop and Frisk lowers crime rates and has saved the lives of countless minorities...

 

[Slyhunter]

Not having stop and frisk and giving people freedom is a necessary, um evil. Sure people will get away with things. That is the price of freedom.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Stop and Frisk lowers crime rates and has saved the lives of countless minorities...

Was that sarcasm?

 

[iliveonramen]

Now that the traditional American culture has been destroyed by the devastation of Liberal "Multi-culturalism" crime control requires much more stringent measures than were required fifty years ago when most Americans didn't lock their house doors and often left their keys in their cars while shopping.

I wouldn't chalk that up to multi-culturalism....

 

[Caine]

Stop and Frisk is a violation of the 4th.......... I wouldn't necessarily agree that it is "racist" though. There is more to the profiling of a person to be stopped and frisked than JUST race alone.....

 

[Ikari]

Stop and Frisk is a violation of the 4th.......... I wouldn't necessarily agree that it is "racist" though. There is more to the profiling of a person to be stopped and frisked than JUST race alone.....

It's clearly a form of "papers please". Indiscriminate search and seizure without proper cause or warrant. I find it hard to believe anyone could support such tactics.

 

[Dezaad]

I intensely dislike the focus on race with regard to this issue. Race is important, here, but it feels to me like people are afraid to oppose it on the basis of SIMPLE unlawful search and seizure, which is the main reason why it is illegal, in my view.

i think it is a mistake to focus primarily on race. Any person has the right not to be stopped or to be touched in an unwanted fashion by anyone else including law enforcement. That is the default. That an area has high crime does not change that fact one bit. Period.

I believe that in every contest between liberty and security, Bloomberg would choose security. This is a patently unamerican position. The instances where security is chosen over liberty are limited, and those limitations are laid out in the Constitution.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I intensely dislike the focus on race with regard to this issue. Race is important, here, but it feels to me like people are afraid to oppose it on the basis of SIMPLE unlawful search and seizure, which is the main reason why it is illegal, in my view.

i think it is a mistake to focus primarily on race. Any person has the right not to be stopped or to be touched in an unwanted fashion by anyone else including law enforcement. That is the default. That an area has high crime does not change that fact one bit. Period.

I believe that in every contest between liberty and security, Bloomberg would choose security. This is a patently unamerican position. The instances where security is chosen over liberty are limited, and those limitations are laid out in the Constitution.

I don't mind the focus on race, in general. However, I will say that I think the focus should be on constitutionality when it comes to legal discussions. Stop-and-frisk should be ruled unconstitutional, period. Focusing on the racial aspect when bringing it to courts prevents this from happening. It distracts from the main point and thus, sustains the general problem of stop-and-frisk in addition to the racial problem of the policy.

 

[Dapper Andy]

Well, something has to be done in the black community.

I can accept stop and frisk might not necessarily be that something but we need to have a real discussion about just how disproportionate problems are and the left has to do more than just shout racial discrimination. We're talking about a community that makes up roughly 12% of the population but slightly more than 51% of murderers. They're failing in virtually every area of society but what is worse is they don't seem to even care about their failing unless it can somehow be blamed on a white person.

 

[Caine]

It's clearly a form of "papers please". Indiscriminate search and seizure without proper cause or warrant. I find it hard to believe anyone could support such tactics.

Your not going to get me to claim support for it, because I don't.

Im just not going to call it racist either........

 

[Caine]

I intensely dislike the focus on race with regard to this issue. Race is important, here, but it feels to me like people are afraid to oppose it on the basis of SIMPLE unlawful search and seizure, which is the main reason why it is illegal, in my view.

Totally Agree.... I pretty much said the same thing in my post. Its not "racist", its just a general violation of the 4th.

I think it is a mistake to focus primarily on race. Any person has the right not to be stopped or to be touched in an unwanted fashion by anyone else including law enforcement. That is the default. That an area has high crime does not change that fact one bit. Period.

I believe that in every contest between liberty and security, Bloomberg would choose security. This is a patently unamerican position. The instances where security is chosen over liberty are limited, and those limitations are laid out in the Constitution.

What is boils down to is that this "Stop and Frisk" policy the way NYPD is executing it is a bastardization of the Terry Frisk procedures supported by the Supreme Court.
Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ For more Information about Terry Frisks.

The way Stop and Frisk is being run in NYPD, according to what I have learned about it, seems like the "reasonable suspicion" that they are using is VERY weak in MOST cases.

And.... if NYPD keeps it up.... they are likely to cause another Supreme Court review which will reverse the original Terry Frisk decision entirely, causing law enforcement to lose a legitimate tool due to reckless and weak over use of it.