Stop-and-Frisk: NYPD stands its ground while facing sharp criticism

reply to post by areyouserious2010


oh and obviously you missed the report on how the nypd was caught systematically planting drugs on people to meet their quota. and what exactly is probable cause? this punk is not well off and dresses like a rapper on tv therefore I am suspicious he may have a gun and drugs so his rights go out the window?

I don't agree with the stop and frisk activity and I do feel the NYPD has, on some occasions, greatly overstepped their bounds however -- if I were to play devils advocate for a moment -- NYC is definitely one of the safer great cities to live in and visit.

Can't wait for the random "home inspections", probably be similar to this with the dumbed down Americans...

Originally posted by yourmaker
why would our system WANT to create criminals out of law abiding citizens?
if the answer to that question is money, something needs to change.

Could be about the money. The american prison industrial complex is huge.

Imprisonment per capita is pretty much the only ranking where the US is still comfortably ahead of everyone else.

*Well, except military expenditure of course.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

 

This is clearly unconstitutional and needs to be stopped!

Well, it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Its called a Terry Stop. The Supreme Court ruled that an officer may briefly detain a person they reasonably suspect of being involved in criminal activity. During this stop, the Supreme Court ruled that an officer may conduct a limited search, or pat down, of a person's outer garments if they reasonably suspect they are armed.

The headline should be "no rights for anyone your constitution means nothing to us anymore".

This seems like an overreaction.

Giving officers the power to molest and harass anybody and everybody is just another sign of the times.

No, Terry V. Ohio was ruled on in 1968 establishing that this sort of action is required for police officers to be effective and ensure their safety.

The real question is how random are the stop and frisks? That is up to the articulation of the individual officer and is judged on a case by case basis.

One could argue that since most people stopped and fisked are found to be innocent means that the police are not exercising a prudent amount of "reasonable" suspicion.

But one could also argue that the amount of gun violence in a particular area of New York City at a certain time of day would lead an officer to have "reasonable" suspicion that people in that particular area in that time range are armed.

edit on 13-5-2012 by areyouserious2010 because: (no reason given)

Are you implying the NYPD had reasonable suspicion to believe 684,330 NY citizens might be armed, simply by passing them on a sidewalk, last year alone?

Terry vs Ohio is not related, nor was it meant to protect police from randomly patting down citizens without probable cause or a warrant. A cop can't just go down a street randomly patting people down, and then use the excuse it's for his own safety, when there was no reason for the patdown, or even approaching the individual in the first place.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Can't wait for the random "home inspections", probably be similar to this with the dumbed down Americans...

They already do that, -- Dept of Buildings home investigations and corresponding # of fines have gone up dramatically since their budgets were cut and they essentially had to issue more fines to sustain it.

reply to post by MysticPearl


dont worry about what this dude says just look at the profile 506 of 512 of his posts have been justifying police behavior he's an obvious shill. No threads since 2010 all posts defending the police.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


That is weird. Definite active/retired police officer or shill.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Yeah its a bit creepy I dont know whether this should be reported or not. He is definitely here with an agenda and has no other use for this site than to attack any anti police sentiment.

We have to give up even caring about this sort of thing because it's become clear that Americans don't care enough to do anything about it themselves and it's their Country.

If they don't stand up, why should anyone else care? Home of the brave? I'm not so sure anymore and I am actually disappointed in the lack of caring and awareness in the US.

And then when people start to stand as one with the OWS, they are ridiculed instead of being helped in their fight for freedom and liberty.

I am starting to believe that there are more hypocrites in the US than actual fighters.

Peace

reply to post by RealSpoke

Harassment and racist

It seems the tactic of intensified stop and frisk is applied to areas that have high crime rates. Just because that area happens to be a predominantly low income, minority population does not elude to rasicm.

In these predominantly low income, minority populations the victims of the high crime rate are most likely low income, minorities themselves. So, how is it racism that the police are trying to protect low income, minority upstanding citizens from low income, minority criminals?

Show me a predominantly high income, white area in New York City with a crime rate that is comparable and then show me that the same tactics are not used.

The mere accusation of rascism is not enough anylonger. Prove what you claim.

Why don't they pay attention to the criminals on wall street?

Because stop and frisk is a tactic used to combat street level crime. The New York City Police Department has very large and well funded White Collar or Economic Crimes section that investigates crimes on Wall Street. We also have a slue of Investigators on the Federal level from the FBI to the SEC to the IRS who also investigate Wall Street.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

oh and obviously you missed the report on how the nypd was caught systematically planting drugs on people to meet their quota.

Yes, I guess I did. I didnt see it in the original post.

Please, by all means, provide me with a link to the report and please explain how it relates to this topic.

and what exactly is probable cause?

Probable cause has nothing to do with a stop and frisk.

Read up on a Terry Stop.

A police officer only needs reasonable suspicion to stop a person they believe are involved in criminal activity.

A police officer only needs reasonable suspicion that a person is armed to conduct a "frisk" or pat down.

It is the duty of that specific police officer to articulate exactly what that reasonable suspicion was at the time of the stop and/or frisk. It is then the duty of the police department to review what the officer's reasonable suspicion was to ensure that it was reasonable.

It is not the tactic that should be drawn into question. It is the articulation of the officer that should be questioned.

reply to post by MysticPearl

Are you implying the NYPD had reasonable suspicion to believe 684,330 NY citizens might be armed, simply by passing them on a sidewalk, last year alone?

Are you implying that they did not? Did you review each officer's articulation of reasonable suspicion to deem them all unreasonable?

I get what you are saying. If they stopped and frisked that many people and only found a small percentage of them to be carrying a firearm or involved in criminal activity then it could be concluded that the officers suspicions were unreasonable.

It does not break down the figures. It only says:

In 2011, the New York City Police Department stopped 685,724 people

Read more: www.foxnews.com...
It does not say all of those people were frisked.

This figure is for the entire city of New York not one particular predominately low income, minority neighborhood.

What this figure says is that 685,724 people out of the total 8,244,910 people in New York City (8.3%) were observed by a police officer who deemed their actions reasonably suspicious. Of those, 12% were found to be conducting criminal activity while 88% were found to simply be acting suspicious and not involved in criminal activity.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

dont worry about what this dude says just look at the profile 506 of 512 of his posts have been justifying police behavior he's an obvious shill. No threads since 2010 all posts defending the police.

Good plan. Instead of attempting to defend your position, simply discount what I am saying because I am an "obvious shill."

You seem to be taking the easy way out. It shows that you either are too lazy to defend your claims through debate or you simply cannot form the argument to debate your position because it is too weak.

I am satisfied with that.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

 

This is clearly unconstitutional and needs to be stopped!

Well, it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Its called a Terry Stop. The Supreme Court ruled that an officer may briefly detain a person they reasonably suspect of being involved in criminal activity. During this stop, the Supreme Court ruled that an officer may conduct a limited search, or pat down, of a person's outer garments if they reasonably suspect they are armed.

The headline should be "no rights for anyone your constitution means nothing to us anymore".

This seems like an overreaction.

Giving officers the power to molest and harass anybody and everybody is just another sign of the times.

No, Terry V. Ohio was ruled on in 1968 establishing that this sort of action is required for police officers to be effective and ensure their safety.

The real question is how random are the stop and frisks? That is up to the articulation of the individual officer and is judged on a case by case basis.

One could argue that since most people stopped and fisked are found to be innocent means that the police are not exercising a prudent amount of "reasonable" suspicion.

But one could also argue that the amount of gun violence in a particular area of New York City at a certain time of day would lead an officer to have "reasonable" suspicion that people in that particular area in that time range are armed.

edit on 13-5-2012 by areyouserious2010 because: (no reason given)

If they seerch every person who they stop that should also be unconstutitional because then it would not be reasonable to assume that 100 percent of people stopped are carrying weapons and the practice is clearly being used as a way to initiate an illegal search.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Yeah but the thing is the only reason you are here is to flood threads about unjustifiable police activities. You bring up good points but I would rather discuss this issue with those that arent here to try to make people believe that the law is on their side. No not all police are bad and there is a reason for police to be here but when the law starts to become unconstitutional thats where things need to be fought. There is no justifying this type of police work no matter how you try. Police shouldnt just be able to walk up to someone and molest them for no reason. Yeah they could give some bs reason each and every time but it is too easily abused. Now stop trolling my thread and go to some other site to troll.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

If they seerch every person who they stop that should also be unconstutitional because then it would not be reasonable to assume that 100 percent of people stopped are carrying weapons and the practice is clearly being used as a way to initiate an illegal search.

Again, the article says the following:

In 2011, the New York City Police Department stopped 685,724 people of whom an overwhelming 88 percent were deemed innocent.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

It does not say that all of those 685,724 people were searched as well. It just says they were stopped.

Also, there is a difference between a "frisk" or pat down and a search.

For an officer to initiate a search of someone it needs to be incident to arrest or with a warrant, meaning the officer has probable cause, or with the consent of the person being searched. A search is invasive and anything contained on their person is subject to inspection.

A "frisk" is a pat down of the outer garments, for example the waistband, to ensure the person they are dealing with does not possess a weapon. To initiate a pat down, the officer only needs reasonable suspicion to believe the person may be carrying a weapon. That means the person needs to have been reported to have a weapon, the person appears to be concealing a weapon, the person is making "furative" movements meaning reaching into their waistband, pockets or other area where they could conceal a weapon or some other reasonable circumstance.

A pat down is not as invasive as a search and is limited to "plain feel." If the officer can immediately identify what they are feeling as a weapon, they can remove that weapon and secure it for their safety.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

Yeah but the thing is the only reason you are here is to flood threads about unjustifiable police activities.

No, I also enjoy the Aliens and UFOs section because it is interesting.

So, the two reasons I am here is to read through the Aliens and UFOs section and also attempt to bring some sanity back to police-related threads on above top secret.

This is what has happened. Misconception and blind hatred for all things police related have created an unreasonable atmosphere on this site.

You bring up good points but I would rather discuss this issue with those that arent here to try to make people believe that the law is on their side.

So, you say that I bring up good points in my arguments but you would rather discuss the issue with people that already agree with you or have views that are similar to yours? Why have the discussion then? Just so your views on the police can go unchallenged?

If I bring up good points, am I not worth at least hearing out? If I bring up good points, why would you discount me as some sort of "paid shill" and not make a counter argument which is based in fact, reason and logic?

I believe the better argument will present itself. That will be decided by the reader, not you or I. I came here to try to debate those who are unreasonable in an attempt to bring police-related matters back to the middle not the extreme views the unreasonable have.

No not all police are bad and there is a reason for police to be here but when the law starts to become unconstitutional thats where things need to be fought.

How are you in position to deem their actions unconstitutional? The stop and frisk depends on that specific officer's articulation of reasonable suspicion. Have you heard the officer's articulation for each and every incident? No. Even the people conducting the studies mentioned in the article have not done that, they are simply basing their appraisal on the numbers.

Police shouldnt just be able to walk up to someone and molest them for no reason.

You are correct. But, police should be able to stop someone if they have reasonable suspicion to believe they are engaged in criminal activity and the police should be able to pat someone down if they reasonably believe they may be carrying a weapon.

You are assuming that all, or even most, of the officers in the article had NO reason to stop these people. This assumption is baseless.

Yeah they could give some bs reason each and every time but it is too easily abused.

It needs to be appraised per occurance after hearing the specific officer's articulation. It cannot be appraised using a blanket assumption that officers are giving bs reasons or abusing the practice.

Now stop trolling my thread and go to some other site to troll.

Now you are confusing me. First you say I bring up good points but now you are calling me a troll.

Does a troll bring up good points? No.

Stop calling me a troll because you disagree with me. Formulate a counter argument and present it here. If you cannot formulate a good counter argument, reevaluate your opinion.

reply to post by areyouserious2010

So, you say that I bring up good points in my arguments but you would rather discuss the issue with people that already agree with you or have views that are similar to yours? Why have the discussion then? Just so your views on the police can go unchallenged? If I bring up good points, am I not worth at least hearing out? If I bring up good points, why would you discount me as some sort of "paid shill" and not make a counter argument which is based in fact, reason and logic? I believe the better argument will present itself. That will be decided by the reader, not you or I. I came here to try to debate those who are unreasonable in an attempt to bring police-related matters back to the middle not the extreme views the unreasonable have.

Its not that I want to go unchallenged its that I dont want someone extremely bias coming in and posting walls of comments that are from the viewpoint that police are saints and not subject to human nature. My problem is not the police its is this particular law. An officer that has issues and doesnt give a crap about peoples rights can clearly abuse the hell out of this. Not that all of them would but there are those types out there. Reasonable suspicion isnt someone just walking down the road its someone acting shady. If an officer were to do this to someone who was looking like he's about to rob a store thats just fine but as the law stands its just anybody whos walking down the streets.

How are you in position to deem their actions unconstitutional? The stop and frisk depends on that specific officer's articulation of reasonable suspicion. Have you heard the officer's articulation for each and every incident? No. Even the people conducting the studies mentioned in the article have not done that, they are simply basing their appraisal on the numbers

I am in a position to look at the 4th and see how this is exactly why the 4th was created. So people could come and go without having to worry about some officer with a bug up his butt coming and harassing them, putting their hands on them, and generally feeling violated for just walking home.

You are correct. But, police should be able to stop someone if they have reasonable suspicion to believe they are engaged in criminal activity and the police should be able to pat someone down if they reasonably believe they may be carrying a weapon. You are assuming that all, or even most, of the officers in the article had NO reason to stop these people. This assumption is baseless.

If it were carried out in a way that wasnt abused. Its just basically hey this guy is a certain race this guy dresses in baggy clothes and is in this neighborhood therefore I have reasonable suspicion to go harrass him. And if you read the news article it articulates cases where this was the only thing the cop had on the people they are harassing. Their needs to be much more accountability when it comes to this type of law. An officer shouldnt just be able to go to anyone and harass them then give some BS reason as to why they were suspicious of them.

It needs to be appraised per occurance after hearing the specific officer's articulation. It cannot be appraised using a blanket assumption that officers are giving bs reasons or abusing the practice.

Im sure many cases arent just bs reasons. But there is no way you can sit here and say there arent plenty of officers that dont care about a real reason because they dont have to worry about getting caught just profiling and discriminating because the law gives to much room for easy abuse

Now you are confusing me. First you say I bring up good points but now you are calling me a troll. Does a troll bring up good points? No. Stop calling me a troll because you disagree with me. Formulate a counter argument and present it here. If you cannot formulate a good counter argument, reevaluate your opinion.

You are a troll. here is my argument. Now go take your bias "all Knowing", "the law is always just", "police would never abuse there power" delusional trolling somewhere else

I heard this story on NPR today.

www.npr.org...
The story as well as the audio clip. I highly encourage you to check it out.

"CONAN: And it should be noted crime rates are down across the country. They're down most sharply in New York City.
COHEN: Right. For the last several years, New York has - I forget the figures - but has accounted for a huge percentage of the crime drop, nationally...
CONAN: So can you draw a direct line between stop-and-frisk and that lowered murder rate?
COHEN: I think you can. I mean, Bloomberg argues that you can. The police department argues that you can. Others argue that you can."
That is their argument for keeping this law.

It's not just New York doing this either.
"FAITH: Yes, hi. We have stop-and-frisk in Philadelphia since 2008. And in that year, the murder rater went down only 15 percent, and then it's been creeping back up since. And it's now, you know, it was at high in 2007, when we had 391 people murdered. And then this year - I'm sorry - last year, 324 were murdered. So, you know, it hasn't really been that effective. That's my point. I don't know about New York, but Philadelphia's stop-and-frisk seems to not be worth the cost."

And the numbers are in:
www.nyclu.org...
"An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that more than 4 million innocent New Yorkers were subjected to police stops and street interrogations from 2004 through 2011, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports"


Not only does this law infringe upon millions of innocent people's civil liberties, it also creates yet another racial divide (or just adds to it).