'Stop-and-Frisk' - good idea or bad?

[HB of CJ]

Stop and Frisk sounds like Nazi Germany in the mid 1930s.

 

[nwslopoke]

Let's see. Stop and Frisk under super liberal white male hating socialist. What could go wrong? It not necessarily what it was. It's what it can be. Look at the old Simpson's episode where Bart becomes a Safety Monitor. That small bit of power goes to his head. I'm not a white guy, but if I was I would not set foot in a Sanders - Wheeler run Portland.

Stop and Frisk is wrong because it is a clear abuse and over reach of authority. Period. It is not illegal for a citizen to exist in a public space.

 

[American123]

If they hung people for significant violent crimes, there wouldn't be a civil rights violating policies like "stop and frisk"

 

[Caveman Jim]

Stop and Frisk sounds like Nazi Germany in the mid 1930s.

Well Bloomberg is a Nazi...

 

[Goosebrown]

SCOTUS has said the Terry stops are fine, which is what these are. It is amazing and sad to watch how many gun owners know better than to believe the blatant lies told about guns by media. Then the same gun owners fall for blatant lies about Terry stops and say the media is now telling them the truth. Easy to see why we keep losing our gun rights.

Terry stops are random and meet specific criteria. These stops were way beyond that. They were abusive and wrong. For a drop to be legal, there must be "reasonable suspicion "

The suspicion must be individualized. Suspecting people because they fit into a broad category, such as being in a particular location, being of a particular race or ethnicity, or fitting a profile, are insufficient for reasonable suspicion.

The issue is the cops check people that do NOT meet that criteria.

Believing that the state had this power is directly against the fourth amendment. It's the same logic as red flag laws taking guns without due process.

Sorry. There is no defense here. Stop and frisk is wrong.

 

[Alexx1401]

Terry stops are random and meet specific criteria. These stops were way beyond that. They were abusive and wrong. For a drop to be legal, there must be "reasonable suspicion "

I know at this point this is a waste of time but, unless you are trying to say you were there, and this was happening to you? Then no, this is not what was happening. When it was being done it was done as Terry Stops. That you do not like this is great, SCOTUS does not agree with you. So you could send them an Email I guess and tell them (SCOTUS) they got it all wrong. Not sure how much good it will do. At this point kind of moot since they have stopped the Terry Stops and the voters there are getting the government they deserve. In many places crime is out of control and the people being made victims are getting just what they asked for. Sad but they get what they deserve.

 

[Flymph]

I think the community would be better served by job opportunities, career pathways in schools, and after school activity programs... maybe some basic healthcare to boot.
Lining people up against a wall on a "hunch" sounds like something a fascist would do.

 

[Goosebrown]

I know at this point this is a waste of time but, unless you are trying to say you were there, and this was happening to you? Then no, this is not what was happening. When it was being done it was done as Terry Stops. That you do not like this is great, SCOTUS does not agree with you. So you could send them an Email I guess and tell them (SCOTUS) they got it all wrong. Not sure how much good it will do. At this point kind of moot since they have stopped the Terry Stops and the voters there are getting the government they deserve. In many places crime is out of control and the people being made victims are getting just what they asked for. Sad but they get what they deserve.

The Supreme Court set guidelines which the NYPD specifically abused.

Stopping people because they looked like they might commit a crime is unconstitutional and supporting it is the same as supporting red flag laws. Same violation of due process.

 

[dcfranzen]

Stopping people because they looked like they might commit a crime is unconstitutional

Terry vs Ohio was about that argument and the SCOTUS ruled 8 to 1 that police officers need to have a reasonable suspicion that can be clearly articulated. IIRC, Justice Douglas was concerned that cops would have more power than judges.

For the cop on the street, it is about personal protection.

 

[Alexx1401]

Terry vs Ohio was about that argument and the SCOTUS ruled 8 to 1 that police officers need to have a reasonable suspicion that can be clearly articulated. IIRC, Justice Douglas was concerned that cops would have more power than judges.

For the cop on the street, it is about personal protection.

Sadly many places now are making it so the Cops have no power, criminals have everything and are untouchable, then wonder why Cops don't know what to do. Meanwhile many of the citizens live in constant fear of the criminals who run free in their neighborhoods. Again the voters getting what they asked for, I hope they enjoy it.

 

[P7M13]

One more tool of a tyrannical government. But hey - it sure sounds good!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

"Stop and Frisk"...sounds bad already , from that term.
And when you start with a term that sounds bad...the discussion can get lost from the beginning.

Speaking only for myself here...

Probable Cause becomes a issue when it turns into "Just Because".
With that said...

Taking away a method that law enforcement uses to catch bad guys or for personal safety , should only be done after great deliberation and input from those who have to live and work under the change in method.

I am not in favor of violating anyone's rights...
But I am also not in favor of stacking the deck , as it were against law enforcement.

Can and will this method get abused...yep I have no doubt of that.
Can this method be used and the one being searched , still retain their Rights...Yes...
If the search is properly carried out.
And yes I understand the huge hazards of that little word "If".

A big problem is that this method is easy to abuse...
As well as easy to over regulate , so as to make the method effectively useless.

Does the method rub shoulders with tyranny or with a dictatorship style of government ...Yes
Is there "Probable Cause" for alarm....Yes
Does this method bother me , in regards to my personal freedom...Yes

Again , speaking only for myself ....I also need to consider the sources of those who are against this type of search.
What are their motives..what do they get out of this being stopped....or how it is phrased or reported etc...
I am speaking here of the actual source for information , not those members here on the forum who are against such a search.

As for media reporting of this issue...
Yeah I look at it with cynical eye...after all the media is so well balanced , fair , equal and open minded when it comes to reporting on :
Guns and gun owners...
Politics...
Or anything else that matters...

Sorry for the long winded post that could be summed up with :
I am for it , however....
Andy

 

[DB is Here]

As a former LEO I'm for it and have used it a few times when I was concerned for my safety. Those that dismiss it out of hand, they have the luxury to do so sitting at home not in fear of not going home safely on any given night. I've even cuffed some for my safety...now what? Would you then yell false imprisonment?

 

[Jonnyuma]

SCOTUS has said the Terry stops are fine, which is what these are. It is amazing and sad to watch how many gun owners know better than to believe the blatant lies told about guns by media. Then the same gun owners fall for blatant lies about Terry stops and say the media is now telling them the truth. Easy to see why we keep losing our gun rights.

I don't much GAF what the media says about it and the Supreme Court can pound sand. If your intimating (by using my post to launch) that I'm part of the reason for the erosion of our gun rights then I invite you to do the same.

Removing completely, or demoting probable cause to reasonable suspicion opens up the language and the practice to every kind of abuse.

I'm not one of the "If you don't have anything to hide...." people who will allow police to search me or my property just because he/she wants to. Usurping of due process doesn't always just happen to somebody else. I think THAT mentality does more to erode our gun rights than opposing the policies of a tiny statist mayor from 20 years and 3000 miles removed.

 

[Dunraven]

Bad idea. Like most other "good sounding ideas", stop and frisk has the common good as it's goal. Problem is that common good stomps all over the constitution. So, simple enough answer.

It's also THE single most effective means of getting illegal guns off the street. Pick your poison.

 

[revjen45]

" I've even cuffed some for my safety...now what? "

If you cuffed me I would consider it duress, since I have numerous orthopedic injuries involving my hands, shoulders, and arms.
Being cuffed means I do not have free will, and thus to refuse to answer questions.
If you cuffed my because you thought I was dangerous I would have legitimate cause to fear for my life. Nobody is more dangerous than a cop who is scared.
BTW, I have no criminal record, don't hate the cops, just live in the Real World.

 

[DB is Here]

" I've even cuffed some for my safety...now what? "

If you cuffed me I would consider it duress, since I have numerous orthopedic injuries involving my hands, shoulders, and arms.
Being cuffed means I do not have free will, and thus to refuse to answer questions.
If you cuffed my because you thought I was dangerous I would have legitimate cause to fear for my life. Nobody is more dangerous than a cop who is scared.
BTW, I have no criminal record, don't hate the cops, just live in the Real World.

Let's not drift into hyperbole, my point is these are tools and only a fraction of my interactions were they used. Most, like 99.5% of any police interactions go smoothly, so why do we focus on the .5% that went sideways then judge the entire police community? This has always baffled me.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Stop and Frisk: Worked!

Look at the murder stats after it was implemented.

They plummeted...can't argue with success!!

But let's not be harsh on criminals, mkay?

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

if you stop me you'll find a gun on me 9.9999 times out of 10 unless its that 1 time a year i go into the post office

 

[MannyGlocks]

I just realized I didn't answer the thread question: S&F is a ''GREAT' idea!

But, like all things the pro-criminal element (dem/commies) hates, this idea bit the bullet (so to speak) when da current mayah got in office and this fine tecnique to rid the scourge of crime got deep sixed...