Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > The Round Table
Reload this Page Stop & Frisk

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

The Round Table Have a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old August 18th, 2013 (05:44 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
Super Moderator
BS
CS
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 13,410
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Spoiler:
Quote:
The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.

One of the most controversial police procedures is the stop and frisk search. This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person.

A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the frisk, the stop may lead to an actual arrest, but if no further evidence is found, the person is released.

Unlike a full search, a frisk is generally limited to a patting down of the outer clothing. If the officer feels what seems to be a weapon, the officer may then reach inside the person's clothing. If no weapon is felt, the search may not intrude further than the outer clothing.

Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.

Investigatory detention became an important law enforcement technique in the 1980s as police sought to curtail the trafficking of illegal drugs. In United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that police have the power to detain, question, and investigate suspected drug couriers. The case involved a Terry stop at an international airport, during which the defendant aroused suspicion by conforming to a controversial "drug courier profile" developed by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Court said that the DEA profile gave the officer reasonable suspicion, "which is more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause."

The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location. Police went to the site, found the vehicle, and detained the driver. The police then found marijuana and cocaine in the automobile. The Court observed that it was a "close case" but concluded that the tip and its corroboration were sufficiently reliable to justify the investigatory stop that ultimately led to the arrest of the driver and the seizure of the drugs.

However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000]).

In the Ohio case, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a Terry stop that was based on a phone call to the police from an anonymous informant who stated that there were two males walking westward on a particular avenue in a particular area and that one of the males was carrying a weapon in his pocket. According to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the Terry stop was supported by sufficient reasonable suspicion because significant aspects of the anonymous caller's predictions were verified. In the Wisconsin case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip that individuals were dealing drugs from a vehicle parked within view of the tipster and their confirmation, within four minutes of the tip, of readily observable information offered by the tipster, even though the officers did not independently observe any suspicious activity. In Florida v. J. L., however, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that an accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and attributes does not show that the tipster had knowledge of concealed criminal activity.
Further readings

Drummond, Rob. 2000. "Phone Calls, Guns, and Searches." American Journal of Criminal Law 27.

Erlinder, Peter. 2001. "Withdrawing Permission to 'Lie with Impunity': The Demise of Truly Anonymous Informants and the Resurrection of the Aguilar/Spinelli Test for Probable Cause." University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 4.

Lisenby, Amanda. 2001. "Informant Reliability Under the Fourth Amendment in Florida v. J. L. Northern Kentucky Law Review 28.


Information in spoiler. Do you find that the controversial procedure should be considered unconstitutional/illegal because of racial bias or another reason? Do you think it actually acts as a crime deterrent? Have you ever been frisked or know of a pertinent situation involving the procedure?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old August 18th, 2013 (11:22 PM).
Phantom's Avatar
Phantom Phantom is offline
Uh, I didn't do it
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Brave
Posts: 1,130
Anyone can be patted down with reasonable suspicion.

I don't see how this is controversial? It's for the safety of the officer and those around them. It's not like they are going into your pockets and pulling everything out as they would if you were under arrest. If they are frisking you in the first place you have done something to arouse their suspision, that's the whole point. Police are very selective with who and how they search. Even when it comes to vehicles (plain sight).

In every one of those 'cases' mentioned, I would have frisked/searched them too. If there was any chance of them having a weapon they get searched, doesn't matter who they are.

A cop's number one job is to come home after each shift. In the end, if you could have a weapon on you, I will think of my safety before your supposed privacy. I'm sorry about that, but it's true.

And how the hell would it be a crime deterrent. "Oh, I'm not going to sell drugs because a cop might pat the outside of my pockets." Yeah, really worry there.

Source: I was training to be a cop since I was fourteen.

Hell, I work as a security officer now, and I'm allowed to do frisks on a person once I put them in cuffs to await the police. It's all about safety, that's all.

For example, a few years ago a local officer was killed. If she had searched the woman before hand, she could have found the weapon. There was reasonable suspicion that the offender had a gun, but they did not search. It was a death that could have been prevented.

About the 'stop and frisk', if you did something to arouse suspicion, pfft, your fault, not the cops.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old August 18th, 2013 (11:56 PM).
Moogles's Avatar
Moogles Moogles is offline
bitter gay.
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dalhousie University
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Posts: 532
I... don't see the controversy either, actually. I've been frisked in the airport before, and while it's insanely invasive I walk into the airport with the understanding that it could happen to me and that I have to prepare for it accordingly. Now obviously that's not the same as getting stopped in the streets, but I think that in a reasonable and democratic society the police should be allowed to do that with the interests of the safety of the public.

I don't about any laws in the states, but in Canada women are legally allowed to ask to be patted down by another woman for their safety and security so I can't really see any huge issues either.
__________________
"And here we tinker with metal, to try to give it a kind of life, and suffer those who would scoff at our efforts. But who's to say that, if intelligence had evolved in some other form in past millennia, the ancestors of these beings would not now scoff at the idea of intelligence residing within meat?"
- Prime Function Aki Zeta-5, "The Fallacies of Self-Awareness"
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old August 19th, 2013 (12:00 AM).
Phantom's Avatar
Phantom Phantom is offline
Uh, I didn't do it
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Brave
Posts: 1,130
Quote originally posted by Moogles:
I don't about any laws in the states, but in Canada women are legally allowed to ask to be patted down by another woman for their safety and security so I can't really see any huge issues either.
It's the same here. Actually a lot of male officer's won't even start to search a woman, they'll have called a woman officer already.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old August 19th, 2013 (12:40 AM).
Limerent Limerent is offline
Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 1,383
Quote:
About the 'stop and frisk', if you did something to arouse suspicion, pfft, your fault, not the cops.
Exactly. If you're a law abiding citizen with no illegal material in your possession then you have nothing to fear from a frisk search, it isn't particularly invasive, and NO WAY should it be considered illegal based on racial bias. A decision to frisk a Middle Eastern looking man in an airport or an African American on a street corner may be considered racially biased to the stereotypes society has of these groups and we should be concerned about targeting people based on ethnicity but if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that any person may be doing an illegal act then it's perfectly legal and responsible to frisk them regardless of skin colour. You can frisk me right now if you'd like

I think concerns about such trivial issues are a "freedom for the sake of freedom" view over practicality and public safety. Sure police shouldn't have the right to break into your house and abduct you and have you sentenced to death without cause but a simple pat down is not unreasonable, nor does it lead down a slope of losing inalienable rights and government/law enforcement tyranny and dictatorship over people. Here in Australia women get patted down by women as well so there's no concerns over that.
__________________
Want to lose brain cells? What do you do? Alcohol, heroin, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall? Try tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old August 19th, 2013 (01:32 AM). Edited August 19th, 2013 by Keiran.
Keiran's Avatar
Keiran Keiran is offline
Moshtradamus
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Posts: 1,616
^Guys, Stop & Frisk is so much more than being "randomly" selected at an airport. Minorities literally can get stopped, searched, while being treated like **** multiple times in a few minutes while just walking somewhere. Its harrassment. A lot of officers actually try to incite a reason for arrest by harrassing people, because the moment you get sick of their crap is the moment the cuffs and tasers come out (if they arent already for no good reason). Its disgusting and needs to be made unconstitutional. I mean, do you really think wasting peoples time and physically assaulting them because their skin color makes you suspicious is okay?
__________________
Mod of Trade Corner| Pair | Trainer Information

又 yltfos os kaeps and low 又
Wandering Allowed, Wondering Aloud
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old August 19th, 2013 (01:54 AM).
Phantom's Avatar
Phantom Phantom is offline
Uh, I didn't do it
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Brave
Posts: 1,130
Quote originally posted by Keiran777:
^Guys, Stop & Frisk is so much more than being "randomly" selected at an airport. Minorities literally can get stopped, searched, while being treated like **** multiple times in a few minutes while just walking somewhere. Its harrassment. A lot of officers actually try to incite a reason for arrest by harrassing people, because the moment you get sick of their crap is the moment the cuffs and tasers come out. Its disgusting and needs to be made unconstitutional.
I know what a stop and frisk is. I was in training to become a cop. I was a police explorer for almost seven years.

I know what I am talking about.

One, in the OP, the events described are NOT stop and frisks.

Example of a stop and frisk:

An officer is on a beat, they come across an individual acting suspiciously. They approach the person, who continues to act on edge and their seems to be moving toward their left side pocket, all while the officer is asking what the person is up to. They believe that that person could have a weapon. They ask the person to move out of the way, against their squad most likely, and they frisk them, asking them if they have any weapons. As the officer touches the pocket they feel a hard object, most likely metal, and long. They remove it, and find a small .22 gun.
That is a stop and frisk.

The person isn't under arrest. They haven't done anything wrong. Yet. The weapon will be 'safe'd'The officer will ask about the weapon, asking for a permit, then run the serial number on the gun, and run the person. An officer can run your ID at any time. They will also probably ask for backup, dealing with a firearm after all.

The person will be arrested if, say, they are violating probation, have a warrant, etc. Then an officer will do a full search and take them to jail where they will be searched AGAIN.

CUFFS DO NOT ALWAYS MEAN YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. THEY CAN COME OFF AS EASILY AS THEY GO ON.

They are there for the officer's safety.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion aren't just for the officers, they are your constitutional right. Are all cops perfect? No. A cop cannot frisk/search you without it, if they do, you can file against them. It's your right. They CAN stop you however many times they wish.

Also they can't 'incite a reason for arrest'... what do you even mean by that anyways, it barely makes sense. If there is a reason to arrest someone, there is a reason to arrest someone.

Also tossing minorities is just barking into the wind. If that's the only argument against a cop's safety and the safety of other's is because 'they only stopped me because I'm X'

They would not randomly stop you if you weren't acting suspicious.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old August 19th, 2013 (01:56 AM).
Limerent Limerent is offline
Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 1,383
Quote originally posted by Keiran777:
^Guys, Stop & Frisk is so much more than being "randomly" selected at an airport. Minorities literally can get stopped, searched, while being treated like **** multiple times in a few minutes while just walking somewhere. Its harrassment. A lot of officers actually try to incite a reason for arrest by harrassing people, because the moment you get sick of their crap is the moment the cuffs and tasers come out. Its disgusting and needs to be made unconstitutional.
That doesn't mean minorities should be exempt from a perfectly legal practice or get any sort of favouritism. Yes they get discriminated against, but to make frisking unconstitutional would make it unconstitutional for all not just minorities and that would be a massive security risk. Say some guy is acting suspiciously and a police officer goes to interview that person, but doesn't have the power to frisk them, cop turns his back briefly to respond to a call out, person pulls out a concealed knife or firearm that would have been found with a frisk and BAM, dead cop, dead bystanders, dead people because a criminal didn't get frisked before going into a bank or a terrorist into a government building, or even just a guy acting strangely on the street, you never know what they could be thinking so a frisk is imperative to determine that there's no danger.

The solution is not to outlaw the process of frisking, it's to provide better training on the appropriateness of a decision to frisk anyone and emphasize non discrimination, as well as harsher policies and a crack down on cultural attitudes. If cops are harassing you remain calm, take down their badge number and file a complaint.

The issue of discrimination is a cultural one and not purely law enforcement's fault, it's the society that officers come from that think Middle Eastern men are terrorists and African Americans are all criminals, so maybe that should be focused on more than outlawing what I see as an essential power of law enforcement to provide safety in the community.
__________________
Want to lose brain cells? What do you do? Alcohol, heroin, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall? Try tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old August 19th, 2013 (03:02 AM).
Keiran's Avatar
Keiran Keiran is offline
Moshtradamus
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Posts: 1,616
In both of your stories someone is acting "suspicious". If everyone who got stopped and frisked was actually suspicious for things other than their race, wouldn't the arrest rate be a bit higher? Stop and Frisk was made with good intentions, but its easily abused in keeping power over monorities. Sorry, but if someone walking down a street (e.g. nearly all stop and frisk victims) makes you worried that is called paranoia, and when minorities make you "nervous" and feel "suspicious" at rates several times higher than whites that is also called prejudice and racism.

Bottom line, Stop and Frisk is too invasive and utilized too poorly to be allowed, considering how ineffective its proven to be.
__________________
Mod of Trade Corner| Pair | Trainer Information

又 yltfos os kaeps and low 又
Wandering Allowed, Wondering Aloud
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old August 19th, 2013 (07:23 AM).
Silais's Avatar
Silais Silais is offline
Princess of the Law
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 290
What constitutes suspicion?

People can be stopped for even the most minute reasons, and frisks are extremely violating, regardless of whether it's outside of the clothes or not. It's one of the few procedures I have no liking for. Perhaps I'm more against it because I've been sexually harassed by a policeman before; to be stopped and frisked by one would be unbearably violating. I think of any pat-down in a public place (besides the airport, where it's unfortunately more necessary) as sexual harassment. Sorry, but no one should have any right to touch me without my permission, even a cop.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old August 19th, 2013 (11:45 AM).
Moogles's Avatar
Moogles Moogles is offline
bitter gay.
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dalhousie University
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Posts: 532
Quote originally posted by Keiran777:
^Guys, Stop & Frisk is so much more than being "randomly" selected at an airport. Minorities literally can get stopped, searched, while being treated like **** multiple times in a few minutes while just walking somewhere. Its harrassment. A lot of officers actually try to incite a reason for arrest by harrassing people, because the moment you get sick of their crap is the moment the cuffs and tasers come out (if they arent already for no good reason). Its disgusting and needs to be made unconstitutional. I mean, do you really think wasting peoples time and physically assaulting them because their skin color makes you suspicious is okay?
Quote originally posted by Moogles:
Now obviously that's not the same as getting stopped in the streets, but I think that in a reasonable and democratic society the police should be allowed to do that with the interests of the safety of the public.
I was aware. If it's really an issue though can't you make an argument for racial profiling and take that to the judiciary system? An actual quesiton.
__________________
"And here we tinker with metal, to try to give it a kind of life, and suffer those who would scoff at our efforts. But who's to say that, if intelligence had evolved in some other form in past millennia, the ancestors of these beings would not now scoff at the idea of intelligence residing within meat?"
- Prime Function Aki Zeta-5, "The Fallacies of Self-Awareness"
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old September 9th, 2013 (11:58 AM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
Super Moderator
BS
CS
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 13,410
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Quote originally posted by Moogles:
I... don't see the controversy either, actually. I've been frisked in the airport before, and while it's insanely invasive I walk into the airport with the understanding that it could happen to me and that I have to prepare for it accordingly. Now obviously that's not the same as getting stopped in the streets, but I think that in a reasonable and democratic society the police should be allowed to do that with the interests of the safety of the public.

I don't about any laws in the states, but in Canada women are legally allowed to ask to be patted down by another woman for their safety and security so I can't really see any huge issues either.
It is indeed quite different when it's on a street, in a park, <insert public place here>, etc. But even in airports, say a major international one, have a seat and see how many people of 'Middle Eastern descent' or 'appearance' get stopped, searched, or even just stared at or given dirty looks. In either practice, there's a racial element.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old September 9th, 2013 (02:01 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
For Money
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,369
Stop and frisk is just a nicer way of staying stop and molest.

That it's done in public just makes it worse.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old September 9th, 2013 (06:57 PM).
Moogles's Avatar
Moogles Moogles is offline
bitter gay.
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dalhousie University
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Posts: 532
Quote originally posted by Livewire:
It is indeed quite different when it's on a street, in a park, <insert public place here>, etc. But even in airports, say a major international one, have a seat and see how many people of 'Middle Eastern descent' or 'appearance' get stopped, searched, or even just stared at or given dirty looks. In either practice, there's a racial element.
I know. I've been searched before. There's a matter of there being a racial element but that isn't a fault of the practice itself? The practice itself has practical uses (As it managed to catch my friends with alcohol - That's what they get for being drunk in public; I was intoxicated as well but had ditched mine) and like I already said earlier, in a reasonable and democratic society there should be an element that the police are allowed to temporarily restrict your rights for the greater good. It's not so much the practice that's bad, but more the racial situation in the states itself imo.
__________________
"And here we tinker with metal, to try to give it a kind of life, and suffer those who would scoff at our efforts. But who's to say that, if intelligence had evolved in some other form in past millennia, the ancestors of these beings would not now scoff at the idea of intelligence residing within meat?"
- Prime Function Aki Zeta-5, "The Fallacies of Self-Awareness"
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old September 11th, 2013 (01:32 PM).
Crux's Avatar
Crux Crux is offline
Evermore
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: 青い世界
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 1,324
Send a message via Skype™ to Crux
People, people, people. . . Let's try to not change the actual procedure into a racial attack. 'Stop and Frisk' in and of itself was founded on the idea of safety, not racial bias. If people of any race are stopped for no reason then they can file a report against the officer who stopped them. But the discrimination comes from perpetrator, not the act.

As much as I want to disagree with this, as it does infringe on the rights of the people to give an unwarranted search against the preference of the person, honestly this does more good than evil.
__________________





{Never and Forever}

Tees | Coming Soon | Coming Soon
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old September 11th, 2013 (05:16 PM).
Silais's Avatar
Silais Silais is offline
Princess of the Law
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 290
Quote originally posted by Rococo:
People, people, people. . . Let's try to not change the actual procedure into a racial attack. 'Stop and Frisk' in and of itself was founded on the idea of safety, not racial bias. If people of any race are stopped for no reason then they can file a report against the officer who stopped them. But the discrimination comes from perpetrator, not the act.

As much as I want to disagree with this, as it does infringe on the rights of the people to give an unwarranted search against the preference of the person, honestly this does more good than evil.
It's not supposed to be racial, but it is. No one can deny that. On average, more blacks are stopped and frisked than whites are, and it has become a method for policemen to indirectly racially profile people they see on the streets without truly knowing whether or not those people pose any sort of threat to the public.

A federal judge in New York City, Shira Scheindlin, found that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional in that it allowed for indirect racial profiling. She claimed that it had led to an unreasonable increase in stops of minorities who would've otherwise been let go had they been white. 83% of stops were stops of minorities (which is over 50% of the city's population), and nearly 90% of the time the policemen initiating the stops and frisks were wrong about the "imminent danger" these people "seemed to possess". Look up "New York City stop-and-frisk" on Youtube and you'll find a plethora of videos where citizens of New York City, mostly minorities, are interviewed about their experiences with policemen and the harassment and embarrassment they suffered from unreasonable stops and frisks.

You could say that this is only applicable to New York City, but it can be applied to any city with a large minority population. Whether or not we want to admit it, we are still heavily discriminating against minorities, and stop and frisk is another way to engage in that activity under the guise of "the law".

Read this article if you'd like: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old September 12th, 2013 (09:26 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
Super Moderator
BS
CS
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 13,410
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
I don't think we really touched on the fact that Stop & Frisk is a largely discredited procedure when it comes to NYC. And here's a neat little archive that demonstrates just how warped it is:

Quote:
2002 was the first year Bloomberg was in office. That year, there were only 97,296 forcible stops. Comparing 2002 to 2011, we see an astounding 600% increase in forcible stops – with 685,724 reported in 2011. These stops were overwhelmingly of minority youth.

In 2011, there were 191,666 recorded index crimes. So, while the overall drop in crime from 1990 is 73%, the 600% increase in stops after 2002 translates into a relatively small 9% net decrease in crime. In short, almost all the crime drop that NYPD brags about occurred before the ramping-up of the stop-and-frisk tactic.

The issue becomes murkier when we examine statistics on murder – and Mayor Bloomberg has claimed that stop-and-frisk is essential to keeping guns off the street. In 1990, there were 2,245 murders in New York City. By 2002, again before the stop-and-frisk increase, the number of murders drastically decreased to 586. This is a whopping 74% decrease in murders. After the 600% increase in stop-and-frisks, New York City recorded 515 murders in 2011 – a fairly small drop.

Making matters more complicated is that the number of murders went down in 2012, to 419, but stops during the corresponding period also dramatically decreased to 533,042 (as the NYPD began to scale back the tactic in the face of criticism). This means there were 152,682 fewer forcible stops, yet the murder rate still went down: fewer stops coincided with fewer murders. In other words, the relationship between forcible stops, index crime and, crucially, murder, is far more complicated and far different than the mayor and the police commissioner would like us to think.
The numbers don't lie, despite what Bloomberg wants you to think. Not only were the vast amount of people frisked minorities, they were also youth. An unfortunate stereotype. That is clear-cut racial profiling. Not only that, but the cities overall murder rate in 2012 fell, just as the NYPD scaled back the practice. So the procedures' merits are pretty dubious.

Now obviously, this is New York, and I wouldn't quite say that the same can been said of other large american cities, unless the city has a similar ethnic diversity, similar socioeconomic status, etc. I'd be interested to see Chicago's stats.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old September 13th, 2013 (03:17 PM).
Phantom's Avatar
Phantom Phantom is offline
Uh, I didn't do it
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Brave
Posts: 1,130
You're missing what me and the others who agree with me are arguing for.

In and of itself, without the racial profiling, without the ageism or whatever, is a safety proceedure. Is it faulted because it's left to interpretation by the officer's who may have tendencies to do things that aren't right? Yes, of course. This isn't a topic about racial profiling. This isn't a topic about searching youth or minors. It's a topic about the ACT, not the why, not the 'on who', the act.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old September 13th, 2013 (03:54 PM).
Silais's Avatar
Silais Silais is offline
Princess of the Law
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 290
Quote:
Information in spoiler. Do you find that the controversial procedure should be considered unconstitutional/illegal because of racial bias or another reason? Do you think it actually acts as a crime deterrent? Have you ever been frisked or know of a pertinent situation involving the procedure?
This was the OP's first statement. Going off of this paragraph, the topic of discussion is whether or not stop and frisk is unconstitutional because of racial bias (or other reasons). So it seems to me that it is about the "why" and the "on who" and not just specifically on the act itself. You cannot discuss stop-and-frisk without discussing the repercussions of the procedure and the potential harm it can cause; focusing simply on the "inherent" goodness of an act without attempting to tackle the problems this act can cause is a major no-no in criminal justice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old September 13th, 2013 (04:35 PM). Edited September 13th, 2013 by Phantom.
Phantom's Avatar
Phantom Phantom is offline
Uh, I didn't do it
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Brave
Posts: 1,130
How about a cop dies because people who thought it was 'wrong' to stop and frisk made it unconstitutional? What if an officer is killed on duty because they couldn't make sure that the person they were dealing with was unarmed?

I think when it comes to a loss of life vs. a few moments of discomfort or embarassment, preventing the loss of life wins.

EDIT: About the racial thing. You're looking at it from one side. I understand that it there are those who racially profile, and will 'stop someone because they're x', but you know what? There are GOOD officers out there, good people, good honest people that honestly just want to make things safer for everyone and want to help people.

Should those officers loose the ability to be able to put themselves in a safer situation because of the actions/beliefs/morality of a few? If an officer pulls someone over 'just because they are x', then that officer should be dealt with, not the entire system, or laws. Which is, what YOU ALREADY ARE ABLE TO DO. If someone is stopped for what they think is an inappropriate reason, or that the officer did not have enough suspicion to do so besides race or determining factor of the like then you CAN take them to court on the issue. And the officer can get fired for such actions, and do all the time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old September 13th, 2013 (08:10 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
Super Moderator
BS
CS
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 13,410
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Quote originally posted by PhantomX0990:
You're missing what me and the others who agree with me are arguing for.

In and of itself, without the racial profiling, without the ageism or whatever, is a safety proceedure. Is it faulted because it's left to interpretation by the officer's who may have tendencies to do things that aren't right? Yes, of course. This isn't a topic about racial profiling. This isn't a topic about searching youth or minors. It's a topic about the ACT, not the why, not the 'on who', the act.
I don't disagree with that premise, I think you're right. That being said, however, there are many things which sound great theoretically, sound great on paper, then bomb in terms of practicality or functionality. It's based on the assumption that the officer will act without any undue influence and will be rational and objective at all times. Nobody, no matter how hard they try, can be completely objective I think. All the police officers (this goes for people in general) can't be monitored or forced to make the right call, every waking second while they're on duty. I don't think New York's S&F procedures account for human nature, for chance, etc. There will always be unforeseen circumstances which will complicate things. Which is why it's ultimately doomed, at least in New York City- those crime statistics are damning. Any other major U.S. city on par with New York in terms of size, socioeconomic status, etc, a Chicago, Los Angeles, etc, will see results like New York. Now, I do think you could implement it in a city several orders of magnitude smaller than NYC, and it could very well work.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump


All times are UTC -8. The time now is 10:02 PM.