Is 'stop and frisk' worth it?

[luiz]

As long as they are only shooting each other in small isolated areas where the police are too incompetent or uncaring to stop them, who really cares?

It certainly isn't a reason to give up our basic human rights any more than 9/11 was.

Do you have any idea how terryfying (and dangerous) it is is for innocent bystanders when one gang shoots another?

 

[luiz]

This thread is full of a bunch of white people who've never faced actual discrimination in their lives. I wonder how many of you would be okay with the police looking at your download history (for piracy) or would be okay with the IRS doing their auditing based on race. I wonder how many supporters of this were okay with Arizona's similar laws aimed at Hispanics undocumented immigrants.

The results of the program are irrelevant if the methods are deplorable. And really, it's questionable that the program does actually work.

I've been "stopped and frisked" many many times, actually.

As Bloomberg said, the police should follow crime reports, not census reports. If most crime is concentrated on black or hispanic neighborhoods, that's where the most police need to be. And that's where the most arrests need to happen.

 

[kochman]

Only, again, they aren't "getting shot on a regular basis". That is just more fearmongering and hyperbole, just like what occurred after 9/11 and the passing of the so-called Patriot Act. "Duh".

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.

So, who cares... only a few young kids are killed in drive by shooting? Nice policy.

Exactly which liberty is being given up? If you aren't breaking the law to begin with, you aren't getting S&F. It is illegal to just stop someone for no reason, but to have a stricter enforcement on laws already on the books is not illegal.

Don't break the law.

If you're going to sell crack, don't litter while you do it. Yeah, huge infraction on our liberties.

I guess you'd rather the kids get killed by drive by shootings than infringe upon that...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you have any idea how terryfying (and dangerous) it is is for innocent bystanders when one gang shoots another?

And I suppose you do from direct experience instead of watching movies and TV shows?

People who live in modern advanced countries don't forsake their rights over incessant fearmongering and propaganda from the authoritarian ultraconservatives, or even the wishes of the liberals who would sacrifice them as a result of continually hearing them.

How many Patriot Acts and abridgments of basic human rights do we need before it becomes obvious what is occurring in this country?

What makes all this so much more Orwellian is that the murder rates and other violent crimes continue to decline in this country.

 

[luiz]

And I suppose you do from direct experience instead of watching movies and TV shows?

Actually I do. I've been stuck in the middle of gang crossfire twice (one of those times a female friend who was nearby got hit in one arm, which is now useless). Gang crossfire was so common is some parts of the city in the 90's that you could see bullet marks in residential buildings in some neighborhoods.

People who live in modern advanced countries don't forsake their rights over incessant fearmongering and propaganda from the authoritarian ultraconservatives, or even the wishes of the liberals who would sacrifice them as a result of continually hearing them.

How many Patriot Acts and abridgments of basic human rights do we need before it becomes obvious what is occurring in this country?

I agree. As I said in my first post, I also disagree with searching people who did no wrong. But if someone is littering or manifesting other such petty criminal behavior in an area known for violent crime, I think by all means said person should be "stopped and frisked".

As I also said, bear in mind that the people whose lives will be saved are not bankers living in the Upper East Side, but rather the poor (mostly black and latin) dwellers of the gang-infested neighborhoods.

 

[downtown]

And I suppose you do from direct experience instead of watching movies and TV shows?
.

If he doesn't, then I do. I taught in Gangland, my sister lives in the Chicago Gangland, and I live maybe 4 blocks from Chicago Gangland. The school where I taught had a kid shot in a gang dispute, and even 6 year olds are accutely aware of whats going on. Gangs aren't like football teams where uniforms are obviously displayed...in real life, the affiliations, and who gets caught in the crossfire, are a little more muddled.

There are some very damn dangerous places in the united states, where people do in fact, get shot, all the time. I'm not necisarrily endorcing this kind of police action (I voted I Don't Know), but I don't know that there are a lot of better options. You can't just shrug and go "eh, poverty capitalism jobs Bush!" and wish the violence away.

 

[kochman]

And I suppose you do from direct experience instead of watching movies and TV shows?

I do have such experience. It sucks living in a neighborhood where you fear for your life... where thugs run the streets.

So, I guess you think we should just let people live in fear and have kids continue to be shot down... and not do anything about it, because if you're littering and you get searched, your rights have been violated...

What makes all this so much more Orwellian is that the murder rates and other violent crimes continue to decline in this country.

Show that graph to the people who live in crime ridden neighborhoods.
Your answer appears to be, we're doing fine, let's not do more to help out our citizenry.

That's pretty sad.

 

[NBAfan]

If little frisking is helping stop violent crime, do it. What good are essential liberties if you get shot by gangs?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Actually I do. I've been stuck in the middle of gang crossfire twice (one of those times a female friend who was nearby got hit in one arm, which is now useless). Gang crossfire was so common is some parts of the city in the 90's that you could see bullet marks in residential buildings in some neighborhoods..

Fortunately, this isn't such a corrupt and backward country where such incidents are far more common.

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

Brazil 26
United States 4.8

While being 34th in the world is hardly something to be proud about, Brazil has 5 times the intentional homicide rate.

I agree. As I said in my first post, I also disagree with searching people who did no wrong. But if someone is littering or manifesting other such petty criminal behavior in an area known for violent crime, I think by all means said person should be "stopped and frisked".

Only they are stopping and frisking people for no reason at all, not that harassing someone in this manner for loitering is acceptable any more than being frisked while stopped for speeding is.

As I also said, bear in mind that the people whose lives will be saved are not bankers living in the Upper East Side, but rather the poor (mostly black and latin) dwellers of the gang-infested neighborhoods.

Then don't you think the police should start doing their jobs for a change, instead of using absurd excuses like this to harass innocent people?

If he doesn't, then I do. I taught in Gangland, my sister lives in the Chicago Gangland, and I live maybe 4 blocks from Chicago Gangland. The school where I taught had a kid shot in a gang dispute, and even 6 year olds are accutely aware of whats going on. Gangs aren't like football teams where uniforms are obviously displayed...in real life, the affiliations, and who gets caught in the crossfire, are a little more muddled.

That is hardly direct involvement. And the police in Chicago are notorious for basically ignoring gang violence. Even so, they aren't even adopting such Gestapo tactics like this, at least yet.

When I was living in Manhattan, someone was shot right underneath my window one night. Recently, a man murdered a woman a few blocks from where I live. Violence is an inherent part of living in this country, but it has hardly gotten to the point where we should give up our rights merely because an authoritarian mayor has decided to clearly overreact.

Once again, violent crime is on the decline in the US. The worst time was two decades ago, yet nobody was even thinking of trying to turn our major cities into police states in select neighborhoods back then, much less stop and frisk so many completely innocent people in many areas that are not supposedly gang infested.

There are some very damn dangerous places in the united states, where people do in fact, get shot, all the time. I'm not necisarrily endorcing this kind of police action (I voted I Don't Know), but I don't know that there are a lot of better options. You can't just shrug and go "eh, poverty capitalism jobs Bush!" and wish the violence away.

It's a good thing I'm not doing anything of the sort. And I thought you were different than those who would insinuate otherwise without any actual reason to do so, as Kochman continues to do. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Yeekim]

Form, stopping and frisking takes but three or four minutes of one's time. What reasonable person equates giving up four minutes of his time with "breach of his essential liberties" or "police state"?

I would say you quite clearly have no idea what "police state" is... if not for the fact that in number of incarcerated persons, US has apparently already surpassed USSR in its better days.

Your ridiculously, incomprehensibly draconian penal policies have already created a police state. For instance, a story from The Economist:

Spoiler :

In 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the Lacey Act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got eight years apiece. Two are still in jail.

Things like this are why US has long been on the top of my "countries to stay the hell away from" list.

And why is that? Probably not least because people like yourself are clinging to ridiculous, dated, overfetishized constitution and nonsensically strict interpretation of its 4th amendment.
For God's sake, the very fact that you have a misdemeanor called "loitering" (seriously, WTH?) means you have long since gone to the other side.

American idea of protection of civil liberties:
1) Adopt 4th amendment.
2) Apply ridiculously strict interpretation;
3) Realize this hinders normal police work;
4) Invent a "misdemeanor" that everybody can always be accused of, to have "reasonable cause" to stop and search them anyway;
5) Slap on a punishment like up to a year in jail for good measure;
6) Profit???

In a word, stop and frisk isn't danger to one's rights. Most everything else in your law enforcement seems to be. But I guess I might cling to this last line of defense too, if the penal system worked here as it does in US.

 

[downtown]

Once again, violent crime is on the decline in the US. The worst time was two decades ago, yet nobody was even thinking of trying to turn our major cities into police states in select neighborhoods back then, much less stop and frisk so many completely innocent people in many areas that are not supposedly gang infested.
.

It may be in the US, but that doesn't mean it has in every city. 2 years ago, the National Guard was almost deployed in Chicago's South Side. We've certainly discussed pretty draconian measures before.

This city has a homicide about every day.

 

[salty mud]

I don't see how stopping someone on the street for a few seconds of their day to frisk them can be a bad idea. Whom is stopped should be left to the discretion of the police officer.

I for one wouldn't mind being frisked; I have nothing to hide, so why should it bother me if it aims to keep people safer overall?

 

[kochman]

I don't see how stopping someone on the street for a few seconds of their day to frisk them can be a bad idea. Whom is stopped should be left to the discretion of the police officer.

I for one wouldn't mind being frisked; I have nothing to hide, so why should it bother me if it aims to keep people safer overall?

Here a stop and frisk just because a cop decided they wanted to frisk you is illegal.
However, it is legal if there was an infraction committed which would warrant police attention. It generally isn't used, and that they are starting to use it in high crime neighborhoods is what Formy is crying about...

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Relevant: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't see how stopping someone on the street for a few seconds of their day to frisk them can be a bad idea. Whom is stopped should be left to the discretion of the police officer.

I for one wouldn't mind being frisked; I have nothing to hide, so why should it bother me if it aims to keep people safer overall?

We really won't know if you have something to hide unless we strip search you and give a daily search of your house.

 

[illram]

So would you agree with the equivalent of a stop and frisk of business and personal computers to stop white collar crime and copyright infringement?

I love this analogy. I bet a lot of folks would be singing a different tune if the police in your area determined that the local college dorm was a locus of criminal downloading activity, and a huge and intrusive police presence was maintained on the premises looking for any excuse to check your hard drives or search your browser history or whatever. You would probably look at the cops like an occupying enemy force. Like a lot of these communities do. Which is part of the problem with gang violence and the generally high crime rate (and low rate of solved crimes) in high crime neighborhoods--there is a complete lack of trust between the community and the police, so there is no witness cooperation. No one calls the cops. No one talks to the cops. So you have a never ending dysfunctional relationship where the police view the entire community with suspicion, and the community views the entire police force with suspicion. Criminality lives in that "trust gap."

 

[kochman]

I love this analogy. I bet a lot of folks would be singing a different tune if the police in your area determined that the local college dorm was a locus of criminal downloading activity, and a huge and intrusive police presence was maintained on the premises looking for any excuse to check your hard drives or search your browser history or whatever. You would probably look at the cops like an occupying enemy force. Like a lot of these communities do. Which is part of the problem with gang violence and the generally high crime rate (and low rate of solved crimes) in high crime neighborhoods--there is a complete lack of trust between the community and the police, so there is no witness cooperation. No one calls the cops. No one talks to the cops. So you have a never ending dysfunctional relationship where the police view the entire community with suspicion, and the community views the entire police force with suspicion. Criminality lives in that "trust gap."

One, violent crime is a bit worse...
Two, if you are caught using your computer to commit crime, guess what, they do seize it and search it...

So, it's a pretty bad analogy really.

You guys keep skipping the fact here, to get S&Fed, you must be violating the law FIRST.

 

[JollyRoger]

You guys keep skipping the fact here, to get S&Fed, you must be violating the law FIRST.

No you don't - there just has to be reasonable suspician - something that falls short of the probable cause requirement in the text of the Constitution.

 

[Hygro]

I can't vote because the poll assumes it actually does reduce real crime by any meaningful measure.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It may be in the US, but that doesn't mean it has in every city. 2 years ago, the National Guard was almost deployed in Chicago's South Side. We've certainly discussed pretty draconian measures before.

This city has a homicide about every day.

Then perhaps that is what they should do instead of deliberately depriving others of their constitutional rights. We don't in a police state, at least yet.

And again, it was likely far worse in 1990 as it was in most other cities. What is so different now?

No you don't - there just has to be reasonable suspician - something that falls short of the probable cause requirement in the text of the Constitution.

Why do so many "law and order" fanatics hate the Constitution so much? How many blacks and other minorities need to be sent to prison before they are finally satisfied?