NYC stop-and-frisk case

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by Warfish

What do the facts say about crime rates amongst African American youths?

Or are you ignoring those facts to suit your argument?



Which would be what, exactly?

And by "gun control" I assume what you really mean is illegal gun being used illegally control, right? A legal gun being posessed legally does not require Govt. control, does it?

Where in The Constitution/Bill Of Rights does it state you cannot protect yourself? If you think that the area in which you live has a high crime rate among AA youths as an American, you are allowed to arm yourself.

Arming yourself as an American is as American as apple pie.

The SAF make the argument that the practice is racist. You can dispute the facts all you want. The statistics do not lie.

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by 32green

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You like statistics? How about the fact that 96% of shooting victims in NYC are Black or Latino?

Where should the police concentrate their efforts? Retreat to the white neighborhoods and "hold the fort" whilst minorities kill eachother?

It would certainly be safer for all these dumb cops who risk their lives for people who hate them.

Also, do you also realize that stop and frisk is not an NYPD "policy" but a practise authorized by the CPL of NYS?

140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
weapons.
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.
3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
possessed, or arrest such person.

Not every stop leads to a frisk and not every frisk leads to a weapon.

If an arrest is made, the Cops have to articulate their actions based upon the above statute, if they dont the DA will decline to prosecute.

Do cops go out into the streets in high crime neighborhoods with the provisions of this statute in mind and stop as many people as they can in an effort to locate guns? Yep.

Are high crime hoods in NYC typically minority? Yes!

Is the fact that more minorities get stopped a sign of racism? No

Unless you are a pandering race-baiter hiding behind the Constitution to spew your venom for LE.

Cops go where the crime is.

-

No matter where the practice comes from, it is racist in the way it is implemented.

http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_Stop...Fact_Sheet.pdf


I don't need to hide behind the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights. They are there for my protection from the tyranny of the state.

Racism is wrong particularly when it violates the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Where in The Constitution/Bill Of Rights does it state you cannot protect yourself? If you think that the area in which you live has a high crime rate among AA youths as an American, you are allowed to arm yourself.

What are you babbling about? How does that have anything to do with this thread?

Arming yourself as an American is as American as apple pie.

And, therefore . . . ?

The SAF make the argument that the practice is racist.

"The stop and frisk make the argument that the practice is racist"? What does that even mean?

You can dispute the facts all you want. The statistics do not lie.

In other words:

"No, I can't point you to any specific information to back up my claims. But I can scream louder than you, and that's almost as good, right? Right?"

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Where in The Constitution/Bill Of Rights does it state you cannot protect yourself? If you think that the area in which you live has a high crime rate among AA youths as an American, you are allowed to arm yourself.

Arming yourself as an American is as American as apple pie.

The SAF make the argument that the practice is racist. You can dispute the facts all you want. The statistics do not lie.

First, I don't support "Stop & Frisk".

Second, whats racist is the Denial Mentallity amongst AA in their own cultural and social responsabillity for the vastly higher rates of crime and especially violent crime committed by AA's.

So there you go, I'm against NYC AND your "not our fault" mentallity.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

No matter where the practice comes from, it is racist in the way it is implemented.

http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_Stop...Fact_Sheet.pdf


I don't need to hide behind the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights. They are there for my protection from the tyranny of the state.

Racism is wrong particularly when it violates the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights

LOL. Look at the stats you provided.

1) 53,000 white folks were stopped and frisked in 2009. Fifty-three thousand.

2) A slightly higher percentage of white people who were stopped were arrested than black people (6.1% to 5.8%), and essentially the same as latinos (also 6.1%)

3) The ccr complains that blacks and latinos are disproportionately targeted because they comprise 84% of those stopped but only 53% of the city's population as a whole.

But that comparison itself makes no sense unless you assume that "stop and frisk" ought to be done randomly, ignoring such things as reasonable suspicion (required by the law), and stopping and frisking proportional numbers of octogenarians and toddlers as well.

The real question is "what portion of the city's gun violence occurs among black and latino populations"?

And if the answer is anything close to 84% (which, based on anecdotal evidence and the statistics cited by 32 earlier in this thread, it appears to be), then there is nothing at all disproportionate - let alone racist - about those populations comprising 84% of those stopped and frisked.

But that's all too nuanced and fact based for you, I suppose. So just repeat yourself, it's racist, right?

[doggin94it]

Oh, one more thing. The flyer you cite says that weapons were recovered in more than 7,000 stops in 2009 - yet concludes that those numbers contradict the claim that the policy "keeps weapons off the streets".

Say what?

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Oh, one more thing. The flyer you cite says that weapons were recovered in more than 7,000 stops in 2009 - yet concludes that those numbers contradict the claim that the policy "keeps weapons off the streets".

Say what?

Not to mention as the policy goes on longer even dopes get the message and don't bring their guns out on the street. You would expect the weapons seizure to go down as the policy is in place longer. That's not because the policy is a failure, it's because it's working.

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

What are you babbling about? How does that have anything to do with this thread?



And, therefore . . . ?



"The stop and frisk make the argument that the practice is racist"? What does that even mean?



In other words:

"No, I can't point you to any specific information to back up my claims. But I can scream louder than you, and that's almost as good, right? Right?"

For a lawyer you seem to know little about the Constitution/Bill of Rights. The 2nd and 4th Amendments of the BOR is what is at stake here. That is what I am babbling about.

Do some thinking outside of your sanitized world for a change. Get outside of Gotham. It is globally known that the practice is racist and violates the US Constitution and BOR.

The searches are unreasonable in many cases. Also they are unwarranted. Here is a more updated pdf:

http://www.nyclu.org/files/publicati...isk_Report.pdf

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Not to mention as the policy goes on longer even dopes get the message and don't bring their guns out on the street. You would expect the weapons seizure to go down as the policy is in place longer. That's not because the policy is a failure, it's because it's working.

The policy is unconstitutional as per the 4th amendment

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Oh, one more thing. The flyer you cite says that weapons were recovered in more than 7,000 stops in 2009 - yet concludes that those numbers contradict the claim that the policy "keeps weapons off the streets".

Say what?

http://www.nyclu.org/files/publicati...isk_Report.pdf

You can argue all you desire, the stops are racist and they will cease. This is still a country of the people, by the people and for the people, INCLUDING NYC.

This pdf is even clearer.....

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

For a lawyer you seem to know little about the Constitution/Bill of Rights. The 2nd and 4th Amendments of the BOR is what is at stake here. That is what I am babbling about.

Not really, no. Which is why neither the second or fourth amendments has been raised in the lawsuit. The only claim that's been made is that it's a disparate impact violation of the fourteenth amendment.

But hey, that's just the facts. I'm sure your fantasy world is a cool place, too.

Do some thinking outside of your sanitized world for a change. Get outside of Gotham. It is globally known that the practice is racist and violates the US Constitution and BOR.

LOL. First of all, the case you are citing is a challenge to the legality of the policy, as practiced, in "Gotham." So saying "get outside of Gotham" really only further demonstrates how loose a connection your comments have to any actual reality.

Second, you do understand that simply saying "it is globally known" isn't a viable substitute for backing up your position with facts, evidence, or rational thought, right?

The searches are unreasonable in many cases. Also they are unwarranted. Here is a more updated pdf:

http://www.nyclu.org/files/publicati...isk_Report.pdf

Care to attempt to focus on a fact in there you think is relevant?

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

http://www.nyclu.org/files/publicati...isk_Report.pdf

You can argue all you desire, the stops are racist and they will cease. This is still a country of the people, by the people and for the people, INCLUDING NYC.

This pdf is even clearer.....

Until you bring some form of rational thought to bear in constructing an actual argument to support your position, I'm done. You can simply go on repeating "THAT'S RACIST" while throwing your temper tantrum. I'm sure it's very convincing.

[32green]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

LOL. Look at the stats you provided.

1) 53,000 white folks were stopped and frisked in 2009. Fifty-three thousand.

2) A slightly higher percentage of white people who were stopped were arrested than black people (6.1% to 5.8%), and essentially the same as latinos (also 6.1%)

3) The ccr complains that blacks and latinos are disproportionately targeted because they comprise 84% of those stopped but only 53% of the city's population as a whole.

But that comparison itself makes no sense unless you assume that "stop and frisk" ought to be done randomly, ignoring such things as reasonable suspicion (required by the law), and stopping and frisking proportional numbers of octogenarians and toddlers as well.

The real question is "what portion of the city's gun violence occurs among black and latino populations"?

And if the answer is anything close to 84% (which, based on anecdotal evidence and the statistics cited by 32 earlier in this thread, it appears to be), then there is nothing at all disproportionate - let alone racist - about those populations comprising 84% of those stopped and frisked.

But that's all too nuanced and fact based for you, I suppose. So just repeat yourself, it's racist, right?

+1000000000000000

We are wasting our virtual breath on this guy.

WOuld love to see if he ever made it to an honorable discharge.

It would really shock me.

-

[Jungle Shift Jet]

A Terry stop, which is the SCOTUS precedent, requires reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause in the 4th Amendment. SAF prevents crime against all citizens when the criminals and their sociopathic communities they come from won't police themselves.

But that won't stop lib, racist dopes from making any accusations they please or WF from "missing" some of them when they take a break from this forum.