Another Blow to Racial Profiling: "Stop & Frisk" Ended by Courts

[Yurt]

your thread title is not accurate

it hasn't ended

 

[drivebymedia]

If the police cannot stop anyone, then everyone should be armed at all times as it their ONLY means of protection.

There are the George Zimmerman's who go looking for trouble - law abiding citizens need have no fear of being randomly selected as a target.

 

[Asclepias]

Given the biggest beneficiaries of that policy were minorities themselves I'd see the decision as rooted in racism. Blacks and Hispanics will be at much greater risk of violent crime going forward.

I think they would rather take their chances on that then be frisked illegally since cops in NY never kill minorities

 

[Asclepias]

If the police cannot stop anyone, then everyone should be armed at all times as it their ONLY means of protection.

Is it just me or does it seem like some people are really frightened all the time?

 

[The Rabbi]

Given the biggest beneficiaries of that policy were minorities themselves I'd see the decision as rooted in racism. Blacks and Hispanics will be at much greater risk of violent crime going forward.

I think they would rather take their chances on that then be frisked illegally since cops in NY never kill minorities

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Given the biggest beneficiaries of that policy were minorities themselves I'd see the decision as rooted in racism. Blacks and Hispanics will be at much greater risk of violent crime going forward.

I think they would rather take their chances on that then be frisked illegally since cops in NY never kill minorities

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

Don't forget the other option. Making pee pee in your pants

 

[Asclepias]

Given the biggest beneficiaries of that policy were minorities themselves I'd see the decision as rooted in racism. Blacks and Hispanics will be at much greater risk of violent crime going forward.

I think they would rather take their chances on that then be frisked illegally since cops in NY never kill minorities

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

You are a simpleton if you think that one stops the other. However to answer your question I would take my chances at getting shot by a criminal before letting the police frisk and shoot me because they "thought" i was going for something.

 

[Duped]

I'm for not frisking unless you have probable cause to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think they would rather take their chances on that then be frisked illegally since cops in NY never kill minorities

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

You are a simpleton if you think that one stops the other. However to answer your question I would take my chances at getting shot by a criminal before letting the police frisk and shoot me because they "thought" i was going for something.

Except that has been the experience in NY. Aggressive policing does in fact reduce crime.
The fact that you trust a criminal more than a police officer speaks to something.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think they would rather take their chances on that then be frisked illegally since cops in NY never kill minorities

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

Don't forget the other option. Making pee pee in your pants

don't project your lifestyle on others.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

Don't forget the other option. Making pee pee in your pants

don't project your lifestyle on others.

Pooping is also an option. Give away your rights because you're scared but don't offer mine

 

[Asclepias]

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

You are a simpleton if you think that one stops the other. However to answer your question I would take my chances at getting shot by a criminal before letting the police frisk and shoot me because they "thought" i was going for something.

Except that has been the experience in NY. Aggressive policing does in fact reduce crime.
The fact that you trust a criminal more than a police officer speaks to something.

Policing is not regulated to frisking. Thats why its called by 2 different names. Indeed the fact I feel my chances are better with a criminal than a cop speaks volumes.

 

[Intense]

Moved to Law and Justice.

 

[Intense]

I think they would rather take their chances on that then be frisked illegally since cops in NY never kill minorities

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

You are a simpleton if you think that one stops the other. However to answer your question I would take my chances at getting shot by a criminal before letting the police frisk and shoot me because they "thought" i was going for something.

News Flash, If a Cop thought you were going for something, you would be at more risk of getting shot 57 times than frisked. What this Court decision will most likely do, is set up random frisks, like at the Airports. Backpacks are currently searched at Events, in the Subways. More likely the policy will screw with commuters and pedestrian traffic, generally, while the thugs blow right by. Maybe NYC will now be modeled after Detroit or DC, or Oakland. Got to love the Statist Utopia mindset. If they cannot handicap Anyone worthy of making a difference, they would be good for nothing, huh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bloomberg, the ultimate liberal, is forced to take a backward step on the road to totalitarianism.

Heh.

He's got some nutty ideas....and often goes too far...but he is not the 'ultimate liberal.'

He's in favor of stop-and-frisk, and will fight for same.

He continued Giuliani's welfare policies....

"1. Mayor Michael Bloomberg had any number of plausible excuses to back off from his predecessor’s contentious reforms. Giuliani had benefited from the strong economy of the late 1990s. But by January 2002, when Bloomberg arrived in office, the city was reeling from the post–9/11 downturn, with the unemployment rate rising to 7.5 percent, from 5.7 a year earlier. As welfare mothers hit the five-year time limit mandated by the 1996 federal law, warnings about the coming destitution echoed through editorial pages and reports from advocacy groups.

2. .... Bloomberg vowed, “We will not allow our city to recede to the culture of dependency,” and he followed through on the promise. In 2003, the city council passed a bill that would have let GED and English-language classes count toward welfare recipients’ work requirements. Bloomberg vetoed it, reminding council members about research showing jobs to be far more effective than classes at reducing dependency. The council also pushed the mayor to apply for a federal waiver providing single, able-bodied adults with long-term access to food stamps—with no work requirement. Bloomberg refused.

3. The administration has squeezed another 20 percent decline from the rolls. Today, there are about 360,000 New Yorkers on cash assistance, down 69 percent from the high of the mid-nineties. Remarkably, the number held steady during the Great Recession and remains stable, even as the New York State unemployment rate has lingered above 8 percent."
CJ Mobile: Saving Welfare Reform

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are a simpleton if you think that one stops the other. However to answer your question I would take my chances at getting shot by a criminal before letting the police frisk and shoot me because they "thought" i was going for something.

Except that has been the experience in NY. Aggressive policing does in fact reduce crime.
The fact that you trust a criminal more than a police officer speaks to something.

Policing is not regulated to frisking. Thats why its called by 2 different names. Indeed the fact I feel my chances are better with a criminal than a cop speaks volumes.

" Indeed the fact I feel my chances are better with a criminal than a cop speaks volumes."

You have the perfect avi and the mentality to go with it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hmm, on the one hand getting frisked,on the other getting shot.
Which would you rather?

You are a simpleton if you think that one stops the other. However to answer your question I would take my chances at getting shot by a criminal before letting the police frisk and shoot me because they "thought" i was going for something.

News Flash, If a Cop thought you were going for something, you would be at more risk of getting shot 57 times than frisked. What this Court decision will most likely do, is set up random frisks, like at the Airports. Backpacks are currently searched at Events, in the Subways. More likely the policy will screw with commuters and pedestrian traffic, generally, while the thugs blow right by. Maybe NYC will now be modeled after Detroit or DC, or Oakland. Got to love the Statist Utopia mindset. If they cannot handicap Anyone worthy of making a difference, they would be good for nothing, huh.

So give up the Fourth Amendment for promise of safety?

Did the Patriot act teach you nothing?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are a simpleton if you think that one stops the other. However to answer your question I would take my chances at getting shot by a criminal before letting the police frisk and shoot me because they "thought" i was going for something.

Except that has been the experience in NY. Aggressive policing does in fact reduce crime.
The fact that you trust a criminal more than a police officer speaks to something.

Policing is not regulated to frisking. Thats why its called by 2 different names. Indeed the fact I feel my chances are better with a criminal than a cop speaks volumes.

Have you been at the pipe again? Your post is incoherent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner," she wrote. "In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting "the right people" is racially discriminatory."

Police brass received warnings since at least 1999 that officers were violating rights, she said. "Despite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread Fourth Amendment violations," she wrote in a lengthy opinion.

"Far too many people in New York City have been deprived of this basic freedom far too often," she said. "The NYPD's practice of making stops that lack individualized reasonable suspicion has been so pervasive and persistent as to become not only a part of the NYPD's standard operating procedure, but a fact of daily life in some New York City neighborhoods."

Lets hear it for the 4th Amendment

From the link:

"Scheindlin noted she was not putting an end to the practice, which is constitutional,..."

 

[Intense]

Police stops in New York CIty have soared some 600 percent over the past decade since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office. New York's finest stopped and interrogated people 684,330 times in 2011, according to The Wall Street Journal. 92 percent of those stopped were males, and 87 percent of those stopped were black or Hispanic.

The problem is with who they hire as Cops ... crew cut, sun glassed, gun lovers.

And you are not profiling? Oh, I guess it's okay when you exhibit bias and prejudice. Do you even know the Ethnic make up of the NYPD?