"Stop and Frisk"

[Vox]

To answer the question of whether any given "stop and frisk" is validly based, one can simply outlaw all stop and frisks OR one can seek alternative ways of testing to see if the cops' stories about the basis for the stop and frisk are honest and true.

For example, if all cops were issued those Google glasses, then everything they did could be verified later on.

But guess what? Folks object to the fact that we have so much surveillance going on. So that proposed remedy would probably just lead to more complaints.

Cops want everyone to be on camera but them! If you believe in stop, and frisk, then young black males should be targeted for the very reason that you believe!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you think you just posted something insightful -- or even comprehensible.

You'd be wrong.

actually he did. the law enforcement in very much for spying on everybody - which is understandable for an authoritarian structure and it's goals.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Cops want everyone to be on camera but them! If you believe in stop, and frisk, then young black males should be targeted for the very reason that you believe!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you think you just posted something insightful -- or even comprehensible.

You'd be wrong.

actually he did. the law enforcement in very much for spying on everybody - which is understandable for an authoritarian structure and it's goals.

Actually, no. He didn't. YOU (or him) making such a claim is not the same thing as that claim being true.

And if the cops were required to wear the "Google" type glasses, then everything they DID (and the basis for just about all they did, such as stop and frisk) would BE recorded. THEIR actions would be able to be judged somewhat more objectively.

The rank and file cops might not be all that happy with such a scenario. But they are given such commands; they do not make those rules.

So the real question is: do YOU (as a citizen or as a "person" in some community) want for the cops to be compelled to record their own actions and behaviors?

 

[Mad Scientist]

It looks like OP doesn't know the difference between the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

 

[Antares]

We can only wonder how many crimes have really been avoided or criminals arrested by this law in New York, as this information is carefully crafted by Mayor Bloomberg's office, but one thing we can be sure: It is indirectly in violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as it seems to be a sly way of checking for firearms, too.

Its not a violation if it doesn't affect white people. Simply read the responses you are going to get here.

You poor kid, our first black president Clinton signed it into Law....

 

[Vox]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you think you just posted something insightful -- or even comprehensible.

You'd be wrong.

actually he did. the law enforcement in very much for spying on everybody - which is understandable for an authoritarian structure and it's goals.

Actually, no. He didn't. YOU (or him) making such a claim is not the same thing as that claim being true.

And if the cops were required to wear the "Google" type glasses, then everything they DID (and the basis for just about all they did, such as stop and frisk) would BE recorded. THEIR actions would be able to be judged somewhat more objectively.

The rank and file cops might not be all that happy with such a scenario. But they are given such commands; they do not make those rules.

So the real question is: do YOU (as a citizen or as a "person" in some community) want for the cops to be compelled to record their own actions and behaviors?

I don't want MY ACTIONS( as a private citizen) to be recorded. I have no problem with police ( as government workers) actions being recorded - they should be.

But that does not change the issue that the majority (at least in a gun-crazy-laws cities) of the police WANT the universal surveillance of the public.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I've said it on the other threads and I will say it again here...

I am against Stop and Frisk laws.

1 - IMHO, they are Unconstitutional. If you don't have cause to arrest me, you don't have cause to stop and frisk me. It really is that simple.

2 - This type of policing does nothing to foster good relationships between the police and the community. In fact, again IMHO, this does more to damage the relationship than the good it may do by preventing crime.

People don't see crime prevented. They do see themselves, their parents, their children, their brothers and sisters, their neighbors being stopped and frisked for no good reason.

3 - Looking at the stats presented by the Judge, it's a waste of man hours. Simply having cops on foot patrol ( two officers together ) would do much more and be more effective as well as build a sense of community between the police and neighborhood. After a while, they aren't "Cops", they are Jim and Mary, who happen to be cops policing the area.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I've said it on the other threads and I will say it again here...

I am against Stop and Frisk laws.

That's ok. You are allowed to be opposed to it.

1 - IMHO, they are Unconstitutional. If you don't have cause to arrest me, you don't have cause to stop and frisk me. It really is that simple.

No. It's not that simple. You happen to be wrong. The Constitution does not say what you claim it says. And the LAW does not say that you can't be stopped without the same degree of "probable cause" that would be needed for an arrest. In fact, such a "standard" would be both unworkable and quite stupid.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

actually he did. the law enforcement in very much for spying on everybody - which is understandable for an authoritarian structure and it's goals.

Actually, no. He didn't. YOU (or him) making such a claim is not the same thing as that claim being true.

And if the cops were required to wear the "Google" type glasses, then everything they DID (and the basis for just about all they did, such as stop and frisk) would BE recorded. THEIR actions would be able to be judged somewhat more objectively.

The rank and file cops might not be all that happy with such a scenario. But they are given such commands; they do not make those rules.

So the real question is: do YOU (as a citizen or as a "person" in some community) want for the cops to be compelled to record their own actions and behaviors?

I don't want MY ACTIONS( as a private citizen) to be recorded. I have no problem with police ( as government workers) actions being recorded - they should be.

But that does not change the issue that the majority (at least in a gun-crazy-laws cities) of the police WANT the universal surveillance of the public.

If you don't want "your" actions being recorded, then it would be pretty fucking difficult to 'record" the actions of the cops who interact with you and your fellow citizens of other "persons."

And I doubt that "most cops want universal surveillance of the public," either.

You keep saying it, but you do not support it.