[steveksux]

Originally Posted by G19G20

You lost me right here because your last post said that 1 in 8 people is a criminal. Now it's a lot less than that? And you're talking about superb? I won't even bother with the rest of your post because your premise contradicts yourself and makes everything else you say suspect and I won't run around chasing down your contradictions all day.


eta

Yes, that much you are correct about. You are in fact, lost. Recognizing when you are in fact ignorant, that right there is the first step in correcting ignorance.

What he is saying, if YOUR contention that its a random stop were true, and 1 in 8 people stopped are criminals, that would mean that 1 in 8 people are criminals. The actual % of criminals is much less than 1 in 8, thus the stops are far from random. Thus they do a much better job of picking criminals out of the general population to check out than they would would be doing if it was in fact based on stopping random people on the street.

Randy

[G19G20]

I didn't say profiling isn't somewhat more "effective" than completely random stops. I said 12% is still a pathetic figure since it means that 7 in 8 people stopped aren't doing anything illegal AT ALL. Keep on harrassing 7 of 8 people that aren't breaking any laws because they "fit the description". Then go wonder some more why people dislike cops. Done with thread.

[Sam Spade]

Actually, you said--repeatedly--that these stops were random and used an incomplete example where nothing was found as evidence of that. You presented no evidence of your own and no refutation of that given you. You said that these weren't Terry stops and had "nothing at all" in common with a proper Terry stop. You flaunted your ignorance repeatedly, played the race card, and have had your butt handed to you by the guys who do this on the street and defend this in court.

It's not that you don't know what's going on; that's common and totally acceptable. It's that you embrace the public school self-esteem script of thinking that you opinion from ignorance is as valuable as educated opinions, and you refuse to do anything to cure your ignorance. To top it off, you act like a Democrat and try to move the goalposts and redefine your already stated position when fact runs against you.

By all means, be done with the thread and let the grownups talk. There *are* issues in play here, but you're a distraction from them.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Actually, you said--repeatedly--that these stops were random and used an incomplete example where nothing was found as evidence of that. You presented no evidence of your own and no refutation of that given you. You said that these weren't Terry stops and had "nothing at all" in common with a proper Terry stop. You flaunted your ignorance repeatedly, played the race card, and have had your butt handed to you by the guys who do this on the street and defend this in court.

It's not that you don't know what's going on; that's common and totally acceptable. It's that you embrace the public school self-esteem script of thinking that you opinion from ignorance is as valuable as educated opinions, and you refuse to do anything to cure your ignorance. To top it off, you act like a Democrat and try to move the goalposts and redefine your already stated position when fact runs against you.

By all means, be done with the thread and let the grownups talk. There *are* issues in play here, but you're a distraction from them.

It's a pleasure watching you operate, sir.

[QNman]

Withdrawn.

[G19G20]

I thought my point was made clear. These stops are profiling and aren't Terry stops. Tired of saying it.

Sometimes profiling works, but at what cost? Pissing off those that aren't doing anything wrong and irritating constitutional scholars. And bringing backlash against police. Then police want to tighten down more. Vicious cycle. Is there a solution where more freedom is better than less freedom? Think about it.

The OP article says a black man was stopped and searched for walking around with a bag. Nothing was found. He's not a fan of cops now and if 1 in 10 searches lead to someone with a gram of weed and an arrest, is it really worth it? Good chance that arrest would be thrown out anyway according to NCLiberty's earlier post.

[seanmac45]

Originally Posted by G19G20

I thought my point was made clear. These stops are profiling and aren't Terry stops. Tired of saying it.

Repeatedly making incorrect statements does not make them correct.

[TBO]

He stood before the well of knowledge, turned his back, and stomped his feet.

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

[TBO]

Group Outside Closed Store Draws Cop's Attention, Leads To Gun Arrest

Officer sees man without backpack wearing one after joining others.


http://norwalk.patch.com/articles/gr...-to-gun-arrest

[seanmac45]

Nice heads up collar, and a text book definition of a Terry Stop.


Let the foot stamping begin.

[Sam Spade]

Nothing illegal about hanging with friends in front of a closed store. Nothing illegal about finding and wearing a backpack. Surely people are free to walk away and not talk to the police.

Must have been an unconstitutional random stop by some cop who was profiling poor minorities.

Those that won't get it, don't get it.

[TBO]

Turns out he's a sex offender who was recently released from prison where he served time for a gang rape.

http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/...e2edde17d.html

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by TBO

Turns out he's a sex offender who was recently released from prison where he served time for a gang rape.

http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/...e2edde17d.html

18, a convicted rapist and already out of prison?

Now there's a political issue to discuss...

[lancesorbenson]

Will these stop and frisks soon apply to anyone trying to hide a Big Gulp? Will Bloomberg start suing neighboring states for selling foods with trans-fats to New Yorkers? I don't know why anyone would live there, but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of ANY policy endorsed by nanny stater Bloomberg.

As far as stop and frisks, while they may not be random (at least technically) the standard of reasonable suspicion may need some reworking. If an officer has articulable facts and reasonable inferences to make a stop, but is wrong 85% of the time, I'd argue that's not an effective standard. I'm speaking as a practical and philosophical matter, not as a letter of the law matter.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by lancesorbenson

Will these stop and frisks soon apply to anyone trying to hide a Big Gulp? Will Bloomberg start suing neighboring states for selling foods with trans-fats to New Yorkers? I don't know why anyone would live there, but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of ANY policy endorsed by nanny stater Bloomberg.

As far as stop and frisks, while they may not be random (at least technically) the standard of reasonable suspicion may need some reworking. If an officer has articulable facts and reasonable inferences to make a stop, but is wrong 85% of the time, I'd argue that's not an effective standard. I'm speaking as a practical and philosophical matter, not as a letter of the law matter.

Ask judge to come up with a new standard. They are the ones who make them via interpretations of existing law.

[seanmac45]

Lancesorbenson;

Yes, please do by all means write of your concerns to the Supreme Court.


We anxiously await their reply.

[Jud325]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

Lancesorbenson;

Yes, please do by all means write of your concerns to the Supreme Court.


We anxiously await their reply.

This has a good chance of putting a crimp in NYC's stop and frisk program.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...and-order.html

[lancesorbenson]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

Lancesorbenson;

Yes, please do by all means write of your concerns to the Supreme Court.


We anxiously await their reply.

I can see you and CACop didn't read that I wasn't talking about the letter of the law. Let me explain. NY can come up with their own policy, stricter than the minimum required by law. If initiating stop and frisks under the reasonable suspicion standard is yielding a 12% success rate, maybe they should change their standard. That would not require me contacting the Supreme Court and would technically still be legal, although in my opinion still wrong. My natural default is to by suspicious of any policy endorsed by your gun-hating, nanny state mayor.

[seanmac45]

The Mayor of the City of New York has absolutely NOTHING to do with NYPD Stop Question and Frisk procedures.

They have been in place without change since at LEAST 1982 when I first learned them in the Police Academy.

So your hatred of Bloomberg has no bearing on the topic at hand. These procedures were written to ensure full compliance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Whether you agree with the arrest rate or not is moot. There are a variety of reasons why stops are legally conducted that do not result in arrests, and they are all quite proper within the boundaries of current statute.

Therefore, again, I suggest you take it up with them.

[DonGlock26]

Originally Posted by TBO

Group Outside Closed Store Draws Cop's Attention, Leads To Gun Arrest

Officer sees man without backpack wearing one after joining others.


http://norwalk.patch.com/articles/gr...-to-gun-arrest

"Is that your back pack on your back?

"Ahhhhhhhh..........."


-

[seanmac45]

"You're under arrest"

"Fo Wha?"

"For the thirty jumbos of crack in your pants pocket"

"Shheeeeiiiiiittt offica you can't arrest me for those"

"Why not"

"These ain't my pants. That there crack belongs to the guy what owns these pants"

[lancesorbenson]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

The Mayor of the City of New York has absolutely NOTHING to do with NYPD Stop Question and Frisk procedures.

They have been in place without change since at LEAST 1982 when I first learned them in the Police Academy.

So your hatred of Bloomberg has no bearing on the topic at hand. These procedures were written to ensure full compliance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Whether you agree with the arrest rate or not is moot. There are a variety of reasons why stops are legally conducted that do not result in arrests, and they are all quite proper within the boundaries of current statute.

Therefore, again, I suggest you take it up with them.

Does Bloomberg ringingly endorse stop and frisks or not? I would say he does. Does Bloomberg, as the chief executive of NYC, have the power to make changes to police procedure? Probably. Is Bloomberg a big government, gun-hating, nanny-stater? Absolutely. So I would say Bloomberg fits into the discussion pretty obviously.

I can see you are either not grasping or are being purposefully obtuse regarding my position that the legality is not the issue. Meeting the minimum standard under the SC's interpretation has yielded a 12% success rate. For every 1 stop and frisk that nets a criminal violation, 7 citizens are molested by the state under a standard that clearly should be rethought. If you think that's acceptable then you and I have vastly different understanding of what it means to be a free country.

[Sam Spade]

Or maybe he has a better grasp of "reasonable suspicion" than you do.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by lancesorbenson

I can see you and CACop didn't read that I wasn't talking about the letter of the law. Let me explain. NY can come up with their own policy, stricter than the minimum required by law. If initiating stop and frisks under the reasonable suspicion standard is yielding a 12% success rate, maybe they should change their standard. That would not require me contacting the Supreme Court and would technically still be legal, although in my opinion still wrong. My natural default is to by suspicious of any policy endorsed by your gun-hating, nanny state mayor.

NYC could tighten the rules but then they would loose those arrests due to officers not being able to conduct Terry stops.

Don't like Terry stops? Find a place that doesn't do them.

Good luck with that. Even SF does them. Berkeley might not.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by Jud325

This has a good chance of putting a crimp in NYC's stop and frisk program.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...and-order.html

Not likely.

What evidence are the plaintiffs going to bring into court?

What evidence will NYC rebut with?

What case law will the judge base his decision on?