[Belize King]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBR...2?irpc=932

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge ruled on Monday the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" crime-fighting tactic was unconstitutional, dealing a stinging rebuke to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who vowed to appeal the ruling.U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin called it "indirect racial profiling" because it targeted racially defined groups, resulting in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics while the city's highest officials "turned a blind eye," she said."No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," Scheindlin wrote in her opinion.


Damn. I didnt know NYC law was like that. Reminds me of that one scene in Superbad. Seth said something like "prepare to be fucked by the long dick of the law". Reading some of the comments of course you have the left and right posting their thoughts.

Living in Texas, shit like that would never fly. We almost passed a law allowing us to carry guns at college campuses. More than half the people I know own a gun and alot have concealed carriers permits. I guess living in LA and NYC is on some different shit.

I hope this thread doesnt turn into race issues but it probably will haha. If Texas had the women NYC has then it would be the greatest state in the U.S.

[JackDavey]

Compare this with the fallout from Arizona's SB 1070, and you'll see just how deep the hamster hole goes.

Quote:

U.S. federal law requires all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days[5] to register with the U.S. government,[6] and to have registration documents in their possession at all times; violation of this requirement is a federal misdemeanor crime.[7] The Arizona Act additionally made it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[8] required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", or during a "lawful contact" not specific to any activity[9] when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.[10][11] The law barred state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws,[9] and imposed penalties on those sheltering, hiring and transporting unregistered aliens.[12] The paragraph on intent in the legislation says it embodies an "attrition through enforcement" doctrine.[13][14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070

This law was essentially designed to allow state law enforcement to enforce existing and constitutional federal law. The NYC "stop-and-frisk" policy was never any such thing. The former addressed a real problem with real economic consequences, while the latter addressed the need to justify and expand police state tactics. In both cases, the cry of "racial profiling" is what will resound most loudly in the halls of the mediasphere.

[la_mode]

The US is still going the direction of the police state if it's not already there.

[Timoteo]

Here's the thing. The police can, and still should go into the highest crime areas and do their jobs. The problem is that they were just stopping and frisking just about anyone, instead of people that were actually suspicious, or looked like they actually were up to something. To them, you were suspicious just for being in the area you live in. They need to do some actual police work, instead of just going on volume of stop and frisks. Just like in Phoenix, the denials that they are practicing "profiling" results in a loss of credibility. Argue for why you think the policy is legitimate or valid, but don't say it isn't profiling. They aren't pulling over blacks and whites in Phoenix, suspecting they are illegal. They're pulling over or approaching people that look like they're from South of the US. That's profiling. You can argue why you think it's justified, but call it what it is. In both instances, both in NY and in Phoenix, honest, law-abiding citizens are being subjected to treatment they don't deserve just because of how they look.

[JackDavey]

I didn't mean that either case was not an instance of profiling, but I can see how I came across that way. By "compare" I meant "note the similarities" in spite of the differences.

[Excelsior]

[gfly]

It doesn't fly because it is racist never mind the 4th amendment. We are fucked as a nation.

[Basil Ransom]

The problems with discussion of racial profiling is that the costs and benefits of the policy and the alternative are not clear. They're never discussed, certainly.

According to the New York Times crime map, 90% of homicide suspects in NYC are Hispanic or Latino. And they're disproportionately young and male. Already, you have a demographic that's a small minority of NYC's population accounting for much of its violent crimes. With racial profiling, young Hispanic and black men would come under more scrutiny. You could probably find a correlation between clothing and mannerisms and criminality as well, allowing some further refinement.

Given the same amount of police man-hours, would crime rates go up if police couldn't profile? How effective are the alternatives? How many more people would die, get raped or robbed if police didn't profile, if any? 88% of murder victims are black or Hispanic, so the brunt of increased violent crimes stemming from abandoning profiling would fall on blacks and Hispanics, not whites. So if profiling is actually effective in reducing violent crime, blacks and Hispanics may have the most to lose from abandoning it.

Parenthetically, it seems like the war on drugs gives cops greater scope to fuck with people, when they're just harmlessly carrying weed or something. And when they're profiling, that means more minorities get caught for dubious drug charges.

NYC Crime Map: http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

[Samseau]

(08-13-2013 01:17 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

NYC Crime Map: http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

Nice link. The Brooklyn Zoo continues to live up to it's reputation.

[DjembaDjemba]

Looking down from your northern border, seems like the US is becoming more and more of a police state, while simultaneously easing up the profiling. It looks like the current (federal) administration is finally working 'under the hood' to try keep minorities out of prison.

It looks the US starting to finally to ease up on the minority targeting, Eric Holder proposed sweeping changes to minimum sentencing and drug charges for non violent offences. These laws usually tossed lot of pot smoking black and Hispanic dudes with no links to violent crime or gangs into prison, and possibly ruined their lives.

The new changes will see a rebalancing of what the US prison demographics will look like in 30 years. More in tune of the out of prison demographics.

This local district ruling didn't repeal the stop and frisk, it simply gave the federal government a mandate to oversee the process. In other words, federal tampering in domestic policing. This is not new, it's been done to southern states since the civil war to keep them from oppressing their minority populations too harshly. But who's the say the federal government will remain benevolent in its oversight in the future?

[soup]

Crime isn't racially based, it's about economics.

Poor white people in Ireland commit crimes just like poor people of color in the city do.

But, let's not forget that we get a lot of white guys committing the most expensive crimes in this country..

[GameTheory]

(08-12-2013 06:06 PM)TexasMade Wrote:  

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBR...2?irpc=932

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge ruled on Monday the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" crime-fighting tactic was unconstitutional, dealing a stinging rebuke to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who vowed to appeal the ruling.U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin called it "indirect racial profiling" because it targeted racially defined groups, resulting in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics while the city's highest officials "turned a blind eye," she said."No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," Scheindlin wrote in her opinion.


Damn. I didnt know NYC law was like that. Reminds me of that one scene in Superbad. Seth said something like "prepare to be fucked by the long dick of the law". Reading some of the comments of course you have the left and right posting their thoughts.

Living in Texas, shit like that would never fly. We almost passed a law allowing us to carry guns at college campuses. More than half the people I know own a gun and alot have concealed carriers permits. I guess living in LA and NYC is on some different shit.

I hope this thread doesnt turn into race issues but it probably will haha. If Texas had the women NYC has then it would be the greatest state in the U.S.

[playa_with_a_passport]

It was funny watching Bloomberg having a mini meltdown on TV. This is a guy who for almost 12 years got almost everything he wanted because he had enough money to P4P the highest paid whores of them all, politicians. He had ample of chance to change a program that was highly inefficient and possibly illegal.

Quote:

She noted that police made 4.4 million stops between 2004 and 2012, and frisked over 2 million people. "In 98.5% of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found,"

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/stop...z2bvrw29x4

The idea of the Stop,Question and Frisk, is to intimidate thugs into not carrying guns because there's a strong possibility that the police will search you even if you you are not doing anything other than walking down the street. This is a more extreme version of the Broken Windows theory. Go after low level offenses aggressively because it prevents crime which makes sense. If I am on my way to Manhattan to commit robberies at gun point, chances are that I would be littering on the way to the train station and I will jump the turnstile once I get there. If the police stop and arrest me for littering, chances are they going to find the gun and prevent crime.

Now with SQF aka Terry Stops, the police doesn't even need to see me committing an offense to stop, detain and search me. All they need is to be able to articulate (i.e. make shit up after the fact) that their "experience" tells them that I committed or was about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor. If they are right, they get a gun off the streets and overtime. If they are wrong, nothing happens and they go and do it again.
At least that's the theory behind it, but the reality is very different.

I have been stopped more times that I can remember. The trick is not to get upset and try to act like a "sidewalk lawyer" because they going to get pissed and arrest you for "disorderly conduct." Sure, the judge knows is bullshit and dismisses the charge but by that time you see the judge you already spent 2 days in jail. You can also sue for false arrest, but no lawyer will take the case on contingency unless the police puts a plunger in your ass. So are you $5,000 mad to put a retainer?

Every smart Black/Hispanic youth in the city knows the drill. An Impala with tinted windows and a bunch of antennas stop near you. 3 White guys with hockey jerseys get out plus a token(light skinned Black or Puerto Rican) You stop, put your hands against the wall and enjoy the massage. They ask for ID and write your name and then leave. Sometimes they tell you the reason for the stop but most of the times they don't even bother. You don't ask because a lot of those plain clothes guys are roid heads(No neck, more pimples than a teenage girl) and have short fuses.

Minority New Yorkers were putting up with this blatant violation of the 4th amendment when there were 2,000+ homicides a year and people would put their babies to sleep on bathtubs because of stay bullets. Now, that the crack inspired crime wave is a distant memory, people are getting fed up with over aggressive policing. Good riddance!!

[It_is_my_time]

Tough to decide if this is good or not.

It does appear to be a violation of the 4th amendment, and anything that goes against the constitution (which seems to be what our govt. tries to do over and over these days) is wrong.

The other side is when you compare the murder and gun crime differences between NYC and Chicago/Philly/DC or any other major city, the results are overwhelming.

Weird though, that the people these policies seem to protect the most are those who are the most against it.

[Sumanguru]

Thank God this has been repealed.

[Basil Ransom]

Future prediction: Cops will have facial recognition devices that let them see instantly the rap sheet of pedestrians walking by. Instead of racial profiling, they'll focus on those with a criminal record. The racial balance of those stopped and frisked will not get much whiter though.

[2Wycked]

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/08/14/...earhead%29

Interesting take on the repeal by WF Price - how progressives benefit from aggressive stop & frisk policies.

[GameTheory]

(08-14-2013 04:47 AM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

It was funny watching Bloomberg having a mini meltdown on TV. This is a guy who for almost 12 years got almost everything he wanted because he had enough money to P4P the highest paid whores of them all, politicians. He had ample of chance to change a program that was highly inefficient and possibly illegal.

Quote:

She noted that police made 4.4 million stops between 2004 and 2012, and frisked over 2 million people. "In 98.5% of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found,"

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/stop...z2bvrw29x4

The idea of the Stop,Question and Frisk, is to intimidate thugs into not carrying guns because there's a strong possibility that the police will search you even if you you are not doing anything other than walking down the street. This is a more extreme version of the Broken Windows theory. Go after low level offenses aggressively because it prevents crime which makes sense. If I am on my way to Manhattan to commit robberies at gun point, chances are that I would be littering on the way to the train station and I will jump the turnstile once I get there. If the police stop and arrest me for littering, chances are they going to find the gun and prevent crime.

Now with SQF aka Terry Stops, the police doesn't even need to see me committing an offense to stop, detain and search me. All they need is to be able to articulate (i.e. make shit up after the fact) that their "experience" tells them that I committed or was about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor. If they are right, they get a gun off the streets and overtime. If they are wrong, nothing happens and they go and do it again.
At least that's the theory behind it, but the reality is very different.

I have been stopped more times that I can remember. The trick is not to get upset and try to act like a "sidewalk lawyer" because they going to get pissed and arrest you for "disorderly conduct." Sure, the judge knows is bullshit and dismisses the charge but by that time you see the judge you already spent 2 days in jail. You can also sue for false arrest, but no lawyer will take the case on contingency unless the police puts a plunger in your ass. So are you $5,000 mad to put a retainer?

Every smart Black/Hispanic youth in the city knows the drill. An Impala with tinted windows and a bunch of antennas stop near you. 3 White guys with hockey jerseys get out plus a token(light skinned Black or Puerto Rican) You stop, put your hands against the wall and enjoy the massage. They ask for ID and write your name and then leave. Sometimes they tell you the reason for the stop but most of the times they don't even bother. You don't ask because a lot of those plain clothes guys are roid heads(No neck, more pimples than a teenage girl) and have short fuses.

Minority New Yorkers were putting up with this blatant violation of the 4th amendment when there were 2,000+ homicides a year and people would put their babies to sleep on bathtubs because of stay bullets. Now, that the crack inspired crime wave is a distant memory, people are getting fed up with over aggressive policing. Good riddance!!

[GameTheory]

(08-14-2013 01:38 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Future prediction: Cops will have facial recognition devices that let them see instantly the rap sheet of pedestrians walking by. Instead of racial profiling, they'll focus on those with a criminal record. The racial balance of those stopped and frisked will not get much whiter though.

whose rap sheet ???

[Ensam]

(08-14-2013 01:38 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Future prediction: Cops will have facial recognition devices that let them see instantly the rap sheet of pedestrians walking by. Instead of racial profiling, they'll focus on those with a criminal record. The racial balance of those stopped and frisked will not get much whiter though.

Some cities already do this with license plate scanners.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-...eveal-mass

Quote:

Automatic license plate readers are the most widespread location tracking technology you’ve probably never heard of. Mounted on patrol cars or stationary objects like bridges, they snap photos of every passing car, recording their plate numbers, times, and locations. At first the captured plate data was used just to check against lists of cars law enforcement hoped to locate for various reasons (to act on arrest warrants, find stolen cars, etc.). But increasingly, all of this data is being fed into massive databases that contain the location information of many millions of innocent Americans stretching back for months or even years.

Facial recognition can't be that far off.