Stop and Frisk

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:30 am

First topic message reminder :

Conservative pundit Kyle Smith has a piece over at National Review with a simple admission: “We Were Wrong About Stop-and-Frisk.”

Smith looks at the controversial use of stop-and-frisk, an aggressive practice in which police stopped, questioned, and frisked suspects on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. A court struck down the policy in 2013, finding that it had been disproportionately used against minority residents. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also campaigned against the policy as a candidate that year, assuring New Yorkers that his election would be the end of it.

That led a lot of conservatives — and the police — to warn that crime would spike without stop-and-frisk. Reality, however, tells a different story, Smith explained:


"Today in New York City, use of stop-and-frisk, which the department justified via the 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, has crashed. Yet the statistics are clear: Crime is lower than ever. It’s possible that crime would be even lower had stop-and-frisk been retained, but that’s moving the goalposts. I and others argued that crime would rise. Instead, it fell. We were wrong."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/8/16865730/national-review-stop-and-frisk-police

It's refreshing to see someone admit that violating the constitution is wrong and unnecessary. Maybe it will catch on and people will accept more freedom from government harassment? Cool

_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Again.  Hypothetically it happens to all white people. Can your brain do hypothetical?

It's not about me, Maddog.  Perhaps you feel insecure in your argument and you are angry at me for pointing out its weakness?  Concentrate.

Stop and frisk, without the racial component, is just a policeman doing his job.  Under Terry v. Ohio, a stop and frisk is legal when there is reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity:

Wiki wrote:Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." [italics added

Reasonable suspicion is the test, somewhat short of (less than) probable cause.  Where the problem arose is where, repeatedly, the suspect turned out to be black (in the southwest, Hispanic).  Stop and frisk turned out to be profiling: stopping and frisking merely because a person was black.  The reasonable suspicion turned out to be the skin color of the suspect.

Cops are supposed to be looking out for genuine criminal activity, not engaging in racial hatred.  In addition to racism, it turns out to be a dereliction of duty.  A cop is rousting a black on one block, when an actual crime is taking place on the next.  Rolling Eyes

Your opinion about stop and frisk is not about you?

Whom should I ask about your opinion?

BTW, you're wrong again. Stop and frisk doesn't need reasonable suspicion.


_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Original Quill on Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:42 am

Maddog wrote:Your opinion about stop and frisk is not about you?

Whom should I ask about your opinion?

My opinion is about the Supreme Court opinion.

Maddog wrote:BTW, you're wrong again. Stop and frisk doesn't need reasonable suspicion.

Yes it does.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 26021
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Your opinion about stop and frisk is not about you?

Whom should I ask about your opinion?

My opinion is about the Supreme Court opinion.

Maddog wrote:BTW, you're wrong again. Stop and frisk doesn't need reasonable suspicion.

Yes it does.

Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing. That's why most places never did it. It occurred without reasonable suspicion.

_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Original Quill on Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

My opinion is about the Supreme Court opinion.



Yes it does.

Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing.  That's why most places never did it.  It occurred without reasonable suspicion.  

That's only half the problem. If the police didn't have an ulterior motive, it would make no sense for them to put forth the effort.

Cops don't roust people from Beverly Hills. They only roust the poor and blacks. As cops tried legitimize ethnic profiling, people said, hey, that's racism. From that point it became a discrimination problem.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 26021
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing.  That's why most places never did it.  It occurred without reasonable suspicion.  

That's only half the problem.  If the police didn't have an ulterior motive, it would make no sense for them to put forth the effort.

Cops don't roust people from Beverly Hills.  They only roust the poor and blacks.  As cops tried legitimize ethnic profiling, people said, hey, that's racism.  From that point it became a discrimination problem.


Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing. That's why most places never did it. It occurred without reasonable suspicion.

_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Original Quill on Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:02 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's only half the problem.  If the police didn't have an ulterior motive, it would make no sense for them to put forth the effort.

Cops don't roust people from Beverly Hills.  They only roust the poor and blacks.  As cops tried legitimize ethnic profiling, people said, hey, that's racism.  From that point it became a discrimination problem.


Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing.

And the Supreme Court has said it is legal. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Maddog wrote:That's why most places never did it.  It occurred without reasonable suspicion.

They did it in Ohio. They did it in New York. They did it in Illinois. They did it in Los Angeles. The did it in Arizona...Sheriff Arpaio made himself famous doing it. I don't understand when you say "most places never did it."

What these jurisdictions did was try to plug in profiling, and call it reasonable suspecion. It wasn't:

HuffPost Blog wrote:How the Supreme Court Authorized Racial Profiling

By Gunar Olsen

After the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s dismantled explicitly racist laws, racism became colorblind to survive. Today, although no law explicitly allows for racial profiling by law enforcement, it still happens at an institutional level. What’s often left out of the discussion about why racial profiling happens is that the highest court in the country has approved it ‒ in more than one case.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

The Supreme Court’s first step to sanction racial profiling was Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), an 8-1 ruling that developed the “reasonable suspicion” standard (also known as the “stop-and-frisk” rule). The Court, whose opinion was delivered by the usually astute Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures” is not violated when a police officer has “reasonable suspicion” “in light of his experience” that a crime has been committed. By opening the door to greater law enforcement discretion with respect to whom to stop and search, the Supreme Court in Terry gave its first approval of racial profiling.

Several studies show that police officers perceive young black boys as violent and older than they actually are. One study from 2007 found that officers display a “robust racial bias in response speed” in a simulated shooting exercise of black and white targets. So when police officers are given greater discretion “in light of their experience” as Terry offered them, it’s no surprise that they disproportionately target black people. (That’s in addition to police departments institutionally over-policing poor communities of color compared to their presence in white communities.)

Since Terry, police departments ‒ and the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts ‒ have interpreted Warren’s decision as carte blanche for police officers, so much so that UNLV constitutional law professor Thomas B. McAffee described Terry‘s long-term impact on the Fourth Amendment as “truly disastrous.” “The Terry stop-and-frisk doctrine has lent itself too readily to supporting law enforcement efforts rooted in stereotypical generalizations and racial profiling,” he wrote in the Nevada Law Journal.

* * * *
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gunar-olsen/how-the-supreme-court-aut_b_9061838.html

Stop and frisk is not illegitimate or improper on its own. The Supreme Court approves of it. But when discrimination is plugged in, it becomes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 26021
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:47 am

A Terry stop is different than stop and frisk.


_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Original Quill on Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:07 am

Maddog wrote:A Terry stop is different than stop and frisk.  

How?

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 26021
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:A Terry stop is different than stop and frisk.  

How?

A.Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion and they happen thousands of times a day here. Stop and frisk as it was used in NYC didn't. That's why it was so controversial. Stop and frisk has ended in NYC, Terry stops have not.

_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Original Quill on Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:01 pm

I asked you 'HOW' the stop and frisk differs from a Terry stop, and you tell me only that one "happens every day" whereas the other happens in New York City.  That's not even a mutually exclusive distinction.

First, there is no distinction between a 'stop and frisk' and a 'Terry stop'.  The latter was the name given to the procedure after the S.Ct. articulated its legitimacy in Terry v. Ohio.  The LII puts it this way:

Legal Information Institute wrote:Terry Stop / Stop and Frisk

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing.  A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

In a traffic stop setting, the Terry condition of a lawful investigatory stop is met whenever it is lawful for the police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation.  The police do not need to believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity.

In a recent case, Floyd v. City of New York 813 F. Supp.2d 417 (2011), the court held the New York stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth Amendment because it rendered stop and frisks more frequent for blacks and Hispanics.

Relevant reading:

Terry v. Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

wex: criminal law and procedure

Second, after the S.Ct. legitimized the Terry stop, a derivative problem arose in that police confused reasonable suspicion with racial profiling.  That's what is wrong with a Terry stop, as raised in the Floyd v. City of New York, mentioned above.

The problem with the Terry stop is it permits racial discrimination as reasonable suspicion. Read the HuffPost article I posted above.  It explains it all.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gunar-olsen/how-the-supreme-court-aut_b_9061838.html

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 26021
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:I asked you 'HOW' the stop and frisk differs from a Terry stop, and you tell me only that one "happens every day" whereas the other happens in New York City.  That's not even a mutually exclusive distinction.

First, there is no distinction between a 'stop and frisk' and a 'Terry stop'.  The latter was the name given to the procedure after the S.Ct. articulated its legitimacy in Terry v. Ohio.  The LII puts it this way:

Legal Information Institute wrote:Terry Stop / Stop and Frisk

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing.  A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

In a traffic stop setting, the Terry condition of a lawful investigatory stop is met whenever it is lawful for the police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation.  The police do not need to believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity.

In a recent case, Floyd v. City of New York 813 F. Supp.2d 417 (2011), the court held the New York stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth Amendment because it rendered stop and frisks more frequent for blacks and Hispanics.

Relevant reading:

Terry v. Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

wex: criminal law and procedure

Second, after the S.Ct. legitimized the Terry stop, a derivative problem arose in that police confused reasonable suspicion with racial profiling.  That's what is wrong with a Terry stop, as raised in the Floyd v. City of New York, mentioned above.

The problem with the Terry stop is it permits racial discrimination as reasonable suspicion.  Read the HuffPost article I posted above.  It explains it all.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gunar-olsen/how-the-supreme-court-aut_b_9061838.html

Terry stops are legal and do not violate the 4th amendment.

Stop and frisk does.

I don't know how else to explain it to you. It appears it's too complex for you to understand. That seems to be a pattern for you. Cool

_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Original Quill on Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm

LII wrote:A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio.

It can't be more clear than that. I've asked you to articulate the difference so as to see where you are coming from. But you stop short of explaining.

Maddog wrote:I don't know how else to explain it to you.

You could start by articulating the difference between them that you claim. But you just keep repeating your conclusion. You won't defer to the authority. You don't read the clear language in the case. You won't explain your reasoning.

If you can't or won't back up your own claim, I guess I'll ignore it too.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 26021
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Maddog on Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:19 am

Original Quill wrote:
LII wrote:A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio.

It can't be more clear than that.  I've asked you to articulate the difference so as to see where you are coming from.  But you stop short of explaining.

Maddog wrote:I don't know how else to explain it to you.

You could start by articulating the difference between them that you claim.  But you just keep repeating your conclusion.  You won't defer to the authority.  You don't read the clear language in the case.  You won't explain your reasoning.

If you can't or won't back up your own claim, I guess I'll ignore it too.

You don't want to understand.

_________________
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Henry David Thoreau
avatar
Maddog

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2017-09-23
Location : Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Original Quill on Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:43 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It can't be more clear than that.  I've asked you to articulate the difference so as to see where you are coming from.  But you stop short of explaining.



You could start by articulating the difference between them that you claim.  But you just keep repeating your conclusion.  You won't defer to the authority.  You don't read the clear language in the case.  You won't explain your reasoning.

If you can't or won't back up your own claim, I guess I'll ignore it too.

You don't want to understand.  

I've asked you the question, and you don't want to answer. If you think that a Terry stop is different from a 'stop and frisk' please explain the difference? You have no answer. End of discussion, by your own doing.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 26021
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stop and Frisk

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum