Stop and Frisk Ruled Unconstitutional


In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in New York, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.

Here is the opinion.

< Eric Holder: Changes in Mandatory Minimum Charging | BOP Issues New Compassionate Release Guidelines >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Money Quote (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    "Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime -- preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example," she wrote, "but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective."

    Got that Obama/Congress, effectiveness does not make a program legal, and I would add neither does need.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    Culling old folks would really cheapen up those pesky human "entitlements," but I'm not sure Jesus would turn water into wine for it.

    The End Does Not Justify The Means (none / 0) (#46)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:27:53 PM EST
    I think you got the money quote.  From what I read this was a major part of the city's argument, and continues to be the proponents argument.

    I am looking forward to the TV shows to come out of the camera recordings ;-).


    Now keeping in tune w/mission (none / 0) (#48)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    of this blog...What need or effectiveness is Obama and Congress arguing wrt being illegal?

     (including any unconstitutional findings)


    Search This Blog... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    The White House claims it's necessary because it's effective.

    ...several members of Congress have said something to the effect of investigating the claims about effectiveness.  The implication being if it works it's A-OK.

    My point is it's effectiveness is irrelevant to the conversation, it's a distraction from discussing the legality of the spying programs.


    I just think a better way to frame it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    would be to say we ALL need to be careful when we choose the end to justify the means...including the parent statement.

    Great (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:36:56 AM EST
    Hey professor d1ckweed glad to see my post gave you a platform for your self absorbed condescension disguised as advise.

    But I didn't ask or want it.


    Scott there is no malice (none / 0) (#64)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    intended.  I apologize if I have offended you.  I truly thought your first post deserved a "5" rating because you really nailed the point on the effectiveness argument.  I have enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate your point of view.  The implication that something was being done illegaly troubled me.  You stated it perfectly in your second comment...  

    discussing the legality

    I am trying not to overtly discuss these things as they can easily be deleted for being off topic.  Maybe we can discuss this on an open thread.  Again, I apologize.


    You ask ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    ... as if thousands -- maybe millions -- of words hadn't been expended on that topic in recent weeks on this very site. What a disengenuous question.

    So I think you should answer it yourself :)


    Scott answered it perfectly... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:37:48 PM EST
    SCOTUS had previously ruled the actions constitutional. Need and effectiveness are not valid arguments to the constitutional questions raised wrt certain aspects of NY's application of their program ;-).

    Manipulative in light of the circumstances...maybe, but not disengenuous.  The presumption of something being illegal requires an assumption analogous to innocence until a finding is made in court, imo.  


    correction... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:23:48 PM EST
    An action that is debatable should not be called illegal.  It should carry an assumption analogous to innocence until a finding is made in court.

    Not a surprise in this case (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    Weiner Was Spot On (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:34:48 AM EST
    Too bad Wiener showed his weener and too bad that many think that this has something to do with his effectiveness in being Mayor, but I will take 10 of him over the Bloombergs and  Giulianis out there.

    His comment comparing NYC police tactics to those in Nazi germany were spot on. And the horrified response to his comment was telling. No one wants to have the mirror put in their face, particularly when it comes to systematic and endemic racism that is seen as normal ho hum business as usual. We are like the Nazis, except they were more honest about it.

    Good for him, he has my vote.

    What A Load (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:31:57 PM EST
    The use of police stops has been widely cited by city officials as a linchpin of New York's success story in seeing murders and major crimes fall to historic lows.

    Widely cited, Mr Goldstein? By who? Ray Kelley, Giuliani, Bloomberg and all those who's BS is purely self-serving?

    Crime dropped across the entire US at about the same rate over the last 20 years. Stop and Frisk had zero to do with the drop in crime, and that goes double for Giuliani's fascist approach to policing.

    Hard to believe that the Paper of Record would be spouting such nonsense.

    If the NYPD is so blessed... (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    with the intuition to pick out the armed and dangerous, why was a gun found in only 1/10th of 1% of stops?  A monkey could find more guns than that!

    Sh*t only 12% of stops led to an arrest, mostly drugs.  

    Whether 88% totally f*cking innocent or 99.9%, it's unacceptable in a free society.

    I love how Bloomberg is crying that the city didn't get a fair hearing, the judge was biased...now he knows how the thousands upon thousands of innocent victims of stop & frisk feel, only they have a very valid point.

    Well Said Mr Kdog (none / 0) (#105)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    And I'm sure that Bloomberg would support expanding this program to wealthy white New Yorkers, especially if we could get the same awesome results (sarcasm alert).

    Who is 'We' ? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:24:16 PM EST

    More race-baiting. Swell. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:48:55 PM EST
    You must be confusing TalkLeft with TalkOutOfYourAss, which would seem like a better fit for you.

    Oh, gosh darn, TP (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    You missed your chance to ply that stuff 'round these parts during the latest crime of the century. Tsk tsk. You're about three weeks too late.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    Is the finding that it is unconstitutional? Or just unconstitutional the way it is currently implemented?

    The tactics (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    Stop and Frisk has long been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

    Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was "not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection."

    Also, (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    The Plaintiffs did not request an end to stop and frisk.

    P. 5 of the opinion says"

    Plaintiffs do not seek to end the use of stop and frisk. Rather, they argue that it must be reformed to comply with constitutional limits.  Two such limits are paramount here:  first, that all stops be based on "reasonable suspicion" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and second, that stops be conducted in a racially neutral manner.

    I would guess the NYPD gets a huge FAIL... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    ...on both these requirements. Shot in the dark.

    All suspicion is reasonable... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    when we're all suspect.  Some more suspect than others of course, aka non-whites.

    kdog, the federal district court (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    confirmed what you have often stated, as applied by the NYPD, NYC stop and frisk is unconstitutional. You should be clicking your heels!

    Cue Fredo Corleone... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!

    He isn't the only one who has often (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    stated that

    But he stated it the most often. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:14:21 PM EST
    The White Queen started last night on Starz (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    Based on Phillippa Gregory's books The White Queen, The Red Queen, and the last one on Warwick's daughter Anne that I can't remember the name of right now.

    When I bought the book you recommended on Cleopatra it turned out my daughter was reading that group by Gregory, so I read those right after.


    kdog (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    It appears the wording of this ruling makes it more likely you could be subjected to stop and frisk in the future.

    No (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:06:43 PM EST

    Reasonable suspicion requirement.

    Hell, the whole thing might get scrapped. Certainly by the next mayor it will.


    Haven't most all... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    of the candidates said they will keep the program, but add more checks and balances and reign it in a bit?

    Of course, campaign promises and $ 2.75 will get you a single ride on the subway.


    Check out for yourself (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    I thought the opposite (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    According to ABC News... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:22:00 PM EST
    here only John Liu has said he would stop it.  Jives with my recollection of the campaign thus far.  

    The rest are critical of it's implementation but won't go so far as to say they will end the widespread unconstitutional practice.  

    Sad but understandable...unless you're a young male black or hispanic you're not the one getting harassed repeatedly.  It's a popular brand of tyranny.


    BTD, do you any opinion on how this (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    I saw somewhere that Chuck Schumer (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    is still pushing Kelly for head of DHS, but that didn't surprise me, so I know it doesn't surprise you...

    Ah - it was a couple of Marcy Wheeler tweets (my bold only to make tweet easier to read):

    emptywheel @emptywheel
    Shorter SJC Member Chuck Schumer: Sure it'd be cool to put someone who violated 4th and 14th of 100s of 1000s in charge of DHS.
    about 1 hour ago

    emptywheel @emptywheel
    Aarrrrrgggghhhhhh RT @resnikoff: Schumer spokesperson confirms to me that the senator still supports Ray Kelly for DHS head.
    about 1 hour ago

    Kdog - If you were a cop ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:14:09 AM EST
    ... in Sweden.

    What happens When You Try To Film The Police In Sweden.

    Yeah, ... off topic, but I couldn't help but think of you ...


    Gotta be a sting operation! n/t ;) (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:30:16 AM EST
    I'm half Swedish... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    ... and I approve this message!

    What about gender? (none / 0) (#21)
    by redwolf on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    "first, that all stops be based on "reasonable suspicion" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and second, that stops be conducted in a racially neutral manner."

    99% of the people they're stopping and frisking are male.  That violates equal protection.  It needs to 50-50 women to men with stop and frisk.


    You would only expect stops to be 50/50 (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:48:56 PM EST
    by gender if those engaging in genuinely suspicious behavior in public were being ignored.  I "suspect" that what is happening is that most folks whose behavior in the view of a p/o actually gives rise to "a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" (to quote the Supreme Court) -- male or female, white, black or Latino, gay or straight -- are in fact being stopped and questioned, and if the circumstances warrant "a reasonable suspicion that the person is also armed and presently dangerous" (same source) being frisked as well.  And then, in addition to those few thousand, hundreds of thousands of additional stops and frisks are being carried out against young, black and brown males, in violation of the Constitution, without reasonable suspicion.  No one seeks to extend the unconstitutional and bogus stops to others on an even-handed basis.  The point is to restrict the stops/frisks to the particular circumstances allowed by the Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio.  The Terry decision, by the way, was considered a loss for civil libertarians.  The issue in that case was whether all stops and frisks, since they constitute a kind of seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment, were invalid unless supported by probable cause, a higher standard.  

    "a reasonable suspicion" (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    - i.e., the NSA standard.

    Link? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    93% male (3.50 / 2) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:03:32 PM EST

    Male 57,293
    Female 3,739
    Not Listed 695
    Total 61,727

    57,293/61,727 = 93%

    But who really cares what the exact % is? The point is valid, as I think we all knew without needing to research.


    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    It doesn't matter.  Since no one involved in the case made it an issue.  A stop is a stop.  Women may have other issues with being stopped and groped, but since this was a case about race-based stops, gender has nothing to do with anything.

    Looks like the Human Rights Campaign (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:18:30 PM EST
    also sees a bias against the LGBT's:
    Schiendlin's ruling is an important win for racial justice advocates who have long criticized New York City's discriminatory policy. It is also a win for those disproportionately singled out by the practice, including LGBT communities, immigrants, homeless people, some religious minorities, low-income people, residents of certain neighborhoods or public housing, youth, and people with disabilities.

    In fact, a 2012 report by the Center for Constitutional Rights found that "it [was] a common occurrence for people to be subjected to stop-and-frisk because of their sexuality or gender expression."

    Data from page 12. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:04:51 PM EST
    The ruling said that a certain segment (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:21:30 PM EST
    of NYC's were unfairly profiled.

    That point just validates that the stop and frisks were confined only to those who meet the city's profile of who were and who were not automatically considered criminals.


    Even the ACLU (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:01:42 PM EST
    Doesn't get in to gender

    Why do you think that is?


    From NYCLU (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    Young black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of stops. Though they account for only 4.7 percent of the city's population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 40.6 percent of stops in 2012. The number of stops of young black men neared the entire city population of young black men (133,119 as compared to 158,406). More than 90 percent of young black and Latino men stopped were innocent.



    Not too surprising (none / 0) (#35)
    by FuzzyFace on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:35:38 PM EST
    That it is mostly Black and Latino men being stopped. At least, what I had read indicated that since there has been significantly more crime in Black and Latino neighborhoods, that's where the police have been focusing their work. And by an amazing cooincidence, it turns out that most of the inhabits in those neighborhoods are Black and Latino.

    Not too surprising (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:07:01 AM EST
    that the court found that the NYC's overzealousness in stopping black and Latino men was unconstitutional.

    What do you think would happen if (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:50:56 AM EST
    only white males were stopped?  If you only stopped white men over 6 feet tall with at least one tattoo, at some point, the statistics are going to reflect that men who fit this description commit more crimes - and with that statistic in hand, cops have all the justification they need to keep stopping white men over 6 feet tall with at least one tattoo.

    These kinds of policies, carried out the way they are, result in a self-fulfilling prophecy: the crime statistics are used to justify the focus on blacks and latinos, but the emphasis on stopping them skews the statistics to reflect higher crime rates in these groups.  And around and around we go.

    I truly don't know why this isn't obvious to people, unless it is obvious, and it get ignored because it suits a larger agenda.


    Your comment is not in tune (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:41:02 PM EST
    W/the mission of this blog.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:22:33 AM EST
    More crime because there is non stop racism dictating who gets stopped and frisked. The NYC police are targeting predominately black and latino neighborhoods. If you stop and frisk everyone in a black and latino neighborhood and never stop and frisk anyone in a white neighborhood the crime statistics will be skewed to suggest that black and latinos have more crime in their neighborhoods.

    If the NYC police would stop and frisk wall street, upper east side manhattan, and other tony neighborhoods with the same frequency that they have done in black and latino neighborhoods, the crime statistics would show that white neighborhoods have a higher incidence of crime than black neighborhoods. And the crime would be more serious than that in the respective poor neighborhoods, as more white people carry unregistered weapons. and harder drugs for example .


    "frisking wall street" (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    lol; what makes wall street dangerous isn't guns, it's paper.

    that comment reminds me of this (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:28:51 PM EST
    Matt Boris cartoon published in the current issue of In These Times

    Awesome cartoon... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:40:34 AM EST
    Thanks DFLer.

    And yet Bloomberg wants us to believe (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    gender profiling (none / 0) (#56)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    jbindc, I'm guessing it's because:
    1. Police officers are less likely to find them suspicious.
    2. Women don't commit nearly as many violent crimes as men. That's especially true of street crime.
    3. As you suggested, many women would complain about groping. That's why police and TSA, for example, use women to frisk other women. This would be less of an issue if the NYPD hired more women. I couldn't find more recent statistics, but in 2009, women comprised only 18% of the police force.

    In comparison, people of color comprise about half of the NYPD, mirroring the demographics of the city.

    If police stopped and frisked as many women as men, I'm sure arrest rates would go up for women, especially in regard to drugs for personal use. But I don't know anyone who thinks women commit as many crimes as men. As you can tell from this thread, however, many people think African Americans and Latin@s do NOT commit a disproportionate amount of crime, not even street crime. (I say "even" because stop-and-frisk doesn't catch white-collar criminals.)

    I realize that reasons 1&2 are used by those who support stop-and-frisk for minorities. But many progressives don't believe in "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism." In other words, women are considered to be oppressed by men, not vice versa. So, they  wouldn't want to increase oppressive tactics against women, especially when those tactics would be deployed primarily by men from a government institution that has always been run by men. Or, to put it another way, if the NYPD is discriminating against men, then the men who dominate it would be at fault.


    Gender Crime (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:18:16 PM EST
    But I don't know anyone who thinks women commit as many crimes as men.

    The problem is that the majority of "crime" by men, is non-violent drug possession. And if the population that is targeted is largely black and latino men, the statistic that black and latino men commit more crimes than women comes into question.

    Say that white women in general were targeted by the police, in the same way that blacks and latino men have been targeted for the next 50-100 years. My guess is that the violent crimes committed by women would skyrocket, far surpassing crime by men. Being assaulted on a daily basis by police and spending time in the prison system for generations takes its toll.

    Most arrests following a stop and frisk are
    for misdemeanors. Misdemeanor arrests for
    marijuana possession in New York City
    have skyrocketed -- with about 350,000
    arrests over the past 10 years, a nearly
    twelve-fold increase over the 30,000 total
    arrests in the preceding decade.

    I was comparing women with men (none / 0) (#59)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:24:37 PM EST
    not all women vs. black and Latino men.

    Women also get arrested for nonviolent offenses, including drug possession and prostitution.

    Women get harassed and assaulted on the street, although the offenders are less likely to be cops. Many of us restrict our movement (such as not going out alone at night) because of male violence. But this oppression doesn't seem to be linked to an increase in violent crime.


    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    Comparing all women to all men is the same for my comment..  if the police harassment was shifted from black and latino men to stop and frisk of women on a daily basis, we would see an increase of violent crime by women over time. In 50 years it would outpace violent crime by men, imo.

    But that is not a likely scenario..  I am sure you can imagine why.


    Unlikely (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    ...we would see an increase of violent crime by women over time. In 50 years it would outpace violent crime by men, imo

    Why's That? (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    Are you sexist? Sounds like it.

    Or (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    more likely, it sounds like you are just making cr@p up.

    You have no basis for your comment, but that has never stopped you before.  In fact, every study on the planet shows that men are more likely to commit violent crimes (or crimes in general).  

    I guess there is one way your "theory" would be true - if they only stopped students who attended an all-girl school.


    No Basis? (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:17:37 PM EST
    Perhaps you forgot to read Jeralyn's post Eliminating Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System

    Or is it that you believe that Black and latino men are genetically predisposed to violence and criminal behavior?  That would not surprise me one bit.


    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    Since you are confusing racial profiling with crimes committed by gender, I can see this discussion is at an end because you have gone off into Crazytown.

    I am Confusing Nothing (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    84% of those stopped were black and latino, 93% of those stopped were male.

    There has been no basis for these stops other than racism and sexism.

    If you believe that men and in particular black men and latino men are predisposed to crime, you are harboring racist and sexist beliefs. And if you believe that women, particularly white women, would not show an increase in violent crime in direct proportion to police harassment, arrest, incarceration, you are harboring sexist beliefs.


    Bloomberg stated (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:05:25 PM EST
    he believes Ray Kelly should be interpreting the Constitution. Not some ignoramus judge. OK. I added the ignoramus judge part.

    But, Bloomberg still stands by the current policy as implemented.

    Stop and frisk (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:31:16 PM EST
    is invasive, something beyond a "terry" stop which is just to question?

    What about something like stop, facial recognition used to check for anybody wanted, parole, known gang, etc. then frisk?

    12% found with something seems very low, does raising that percentage matter, or is the judge looking for some racial quota?

    Are these stops routinely video recorded?

    Trying not to be trite, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by Magnumto on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    it seems to me that "stop and frisk" is exactly the sort of thing the authors of the Constitution wanted to prevent.  Really, what is the difference between the British stopping and frisking random "law breakers" ("Really, your lordship, he looked bloomin' suspicious to me.") and the police doing it?  I realize this ruling focuses on inequality and that the SCOTUS has already ruled that S&F is legal, but...doggonnit, they shouldn't have!

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    as I read the Bill of Rights, stop & frisk is an infringement of inalienable rights even if done in a racially nuetral manner...SCOTUS got it wrong.

    "Reasonable suspicion" shiouldn't be enough to impede free travel and throw some poor slob against a wall to spread 'em....probable cause a crims has been committed should be the requirement.  

    I realize this makes the job of the police harder, and may lead to a higher crime rate.  There are worse things...like never feeling safe in your own skin at the hands of the state aka tyranny.


    I don't care for (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    your slam poetry. It isn't any more appealing than your viewpoint so I give it 1/2 a star out of 5. You get that much because you had the courage to put it out there in the public domain.

    I figured it was a case of a new (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    commenter not realizing that the text wraps, and doesn't need a return as the text gets closer to the right margin of the comment box...

    Yes, I expect so (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    That was tongue in cheek.

    Oh - my snark detector must have (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    been momentarily turned off, lol.

    LOL (none / 0) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    No problem. But seriously -- try reading it like slam poetry.

    Tell that to my friend (none / 0) (#81)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    ...a Black man who was seen driving on a suspended license.  The deputy shot him twice.

    The deputy fortunately did not put all his shots on target.  He missed a few times also.

    Another linked story (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 04:35:14 PM EST
    At about 5:50 p.m. July 7, the deputy was on patrol on Terners Drive in Marin City when he saw a vehicle approaching him from the other direction at which point the vehicle immediately pulled to the side of the road. As the deputy drove past the vehicle, he identified the driver from previous contacts and knew he had Grayson had suspended license. The deputy made a U-turn and positioned his patrol vehicle behind Grayson's vehicle.

    As the deputy exited his vehicle, he noticed that Grayson ducked down as the deputy approached. The deputy drew his firearm and ordered Grayson to show his hands. Grayson then accelerated his vehicle toward the deputy, and the deputy fired several rounds from his firearm toward Grayson.

    The Grayson's vehicle continued down Terners, out of sight from the deputy. A witness advised the deputy that the vehicle drove to the 200 Lot in Marin City. The vehicle was located abandoned a short time later. Evidence indicated that Grayson might have been bleeding and in need medical attention.

    At about 9:55 p.m., with help from the community, efforts were made to safely have Grayson surrender to the Marin County Sheriff's Office. Grayson was taken into custody and immediately transported by law enforcement and medical personnel to a local hospital for injuries he sustained.


    Weirdest non-sequitur of the day (none / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:32:55 PM EST

    As someone who is at risk from young men (none / 0) (#86)
    by Juanita Moreno on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:11:09 AM EST
    carrying guns in my neighborhood, I'd like to hear some of you who are against Stop and Frisk for some other solution to keep handguns off my streets.

    And please don't repeat the trite suggestion to provide education and jobs. Youth in my neighborhood are offered free high school and free college, yet they still choose to join gangs and commit violent crimes. Our city high schools have highly paid, dedicated teachers with much more money than schools in the country, yet young men choose not to avail themselves of the resources we offer them.

    So what are your great liberal ideas to keep guns out of the hands of my derelict neighbors?

    Us great liberal minds (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:22:16 AM EST
    would like to see some links to substantiate your claim on the "free college" education available for youth in your neighborhood which includes the the total of the funds available and how many students from your neighborhood would be able to get this "free college" education. Also school specific data on which city high schools in your neighborhood have highly paid, dedicated teachers.

    No, I don't think you really want (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Juanita Moreno on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    to see things differently. But if many of you lived in my neighborhood instead of your upper class, low crime neighborhoods, you might think it's a good idea for the police to catch young men with guns.

    How about this idea: The police continue the Stop and Frisk in high crime neighborhoods, EVEN if those neighborhoods are predominantly filled with people of color, but they randomly stop people instead of looking to see if someone is hanging out on a corner hiding a gun in their pants. Would that be OK with you? Stop the old women walking by just to make sure you're not targeting the young men more likely to be carrying an illegal handgun. Would that appease your sensibilities, or would you still be mad that the program is run in a neighborhood that has more people of color than white people, even though that neighborhood is exactly where they're more likely to find armed gang members?


    Don't be so quick to judge... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:59:31 AM EST
    I don't live in no upper class low crime neighborhood.  

    No, your more random stop & frisk scenario is not acceptable, then you are infringing on the inalienable rights of all groups instead of predominantly young black and hispanic men.

    Though stop & frisk is really no skin off my back because I'm white, I have been aggressively stopped and frisked back in the Guiliani days and it's a terrorizing humiliation I could never wish on anybody, no matter how high the murder rate goes or how many guns their are on the street.  The ends do not justify those means.  No ones right to free travel and freedom from unreasonable searches are negotiable.  They are inalienable rights and I'm glad the court has backed 'em up after all these years of abuse.


    First of all it my comment had (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:12:59 AM EST
    absolutely nothing to do with wanting or not wanting to see something differently. It has to do with wanting to see things clearly based on real data. It requested that you back up your claims with real verifiable data. You want to make claims and seem unwilling to back them up.

    Second as an attempt to distract from your unwillingness to substantiate your claims, you have decided to profile the TL community.

    But if many of you lived in my neighborhood instead of your upper class, low crime neighborhoods, you might think it's a good idea for the police to catch young men with guns.

    You were responding to my comment and my user ID is not "many." FYI, I do not live in an upper class, low crime neighborhood. kdog does not in an upper class, low crime neighborhood and neither do "many" others on this blog who oppose NY's unconstitutional "stop and frisk" practice.

    Can you back up your claims with real data? If so, please provide the links.


    Jaunita, Stop & Frisk will (none / 0) (#92)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    evolve in New York.  Reading parts of the opinion it is apparent that adequate records are not being kept to justify their actions.  They are now going to be required to record a narrative of their reason for the stop, among other requirements.

    If they showed that the frisks were done in high crime areas, then showed that the demographics of those areas were more representative of the people being frisked; they may better be able to justify their actions, as well.

    In Detroit we have, "Call the police, and we might show up...or not", so I do have some difficulty relating to the New York experience.

    Where are you Juanita?


    I'd imagine... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    it's a big switch from Motown Visteo...we have a cop for every light on Broadway in NYC, which leaves many without any crimes to investigate or much to do, so they are forced to find criminals in unconstitutional ways.  

    Especially considering the white-collar crime spree going down daily on Wall St. goes unpoliced by the NYPD.

    I propose we reassign half the cops in NYC to work in Detroit! We'll pay 'em if you'll take 'em! ;)


    New York (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Juanita Moreno on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    Make your vote count (none / 0) (#96)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    in the election.  Look at what your candidates are saying about crime.  You can make a difference.  Involve others, if you want.

    Please don't dimiss things like education and jobs or a sensible legalization of drugs...even conservatives that I speak with support these things.


    Education's great, jobs even better. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Juanita Moreno on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:00:19 PM EST
    My beef is with the people who have enormous opportunities to become educated but choose not to because it takes more work than they're willing to do. Instead they sell drugs and get their girlfriends pregnant so they can live off welfare and Section 8.

    Poor people get a lot of help with college. I'm not going to provide links for MO Blue. Just look at the Federal FAFSA. Talk to any college financial aid counselor. There's no excuse for deciding to join a gang or be a thug and hurt other people. Poverty doesn't make people kill others, greed and stupidity does.


    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by sj on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    sj, I think it must be (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    Talk Out Of Your A$$ Day and someone forgot to tell us...

    ha! (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    I don't think Stop & Frisk... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:43:18 PM EST
    was ever designed to catch welfare cheats.

    I can understand your frustrations, but we must be careful not to kick the dog.  Nobody in the ghetto designed our economic system or drug policies...many are just playing the cards they are dealt.  There is no excuse for killing, and nobody is defending gun-toting thugs who kill...what we are defending are the civil rights of everyone, especially the 88% of stop & frisk victims who were breaking no law, and the 99.9% percent who weren't armed.  


    Jobs and education take time (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    to affect numbers on the street.  At least, those that do get jobs and educations may stay in New York.  Too many leave Detroit and add to the financial crisis. New Yorkers may move to a different neighborhood... maybe some stay and help their old neighborhoods.  I envy you right now.

    Poor and priveleged, alike, take advantage of of student aid.  I was older when I returned to school.  I lived at home for a bit, but my parent's income was not considered due to my age.  I saw poor and priveleged, alike, wasting their opportunities in college.  I often thought there should be a performance factor used in student aid to weed out those abusing the system, but how do you determine that it is abuse or just someone less gifted?  How do you know it isn't the night job they are working to pay for school that has them getting poor grades?

    Welfare and section 8 will have these same problems of abuse and the ability to distinguish it from something else.  When you graduate, but can't read, many doors close for you.  If too many doors close, the choice of a wrong door becomes greater.

    Greed corrupts all.  It is our greatest evil.  It affects CEO's and the homeless man stealing from the homeless man.  I can't say poverty causes people to be violent, but it can put you places that expose you to neglect, violence and a whole host of things someone in a privileged situation will never deal with.  There are plenty who live in poverty, who are brought up right and are able to avoid what others cannot avoid.  For some it is not so easy. Don't some join gangs out of fear?  Don't some gangs exist because the public fears both the gang and the police?  And, I am sure some chose that lifestyle because it looks cool and is glamorised.  They may even come from the more priviliged.

    When I was young, there was no good excuse for some of the things I did.  Maybe it looked fun or glamorous.  Luckily, I never had to join a gang or hurt other people...maybe in my eye, I did worse things, but this is getting long enough.  Those street thugs, if the survive to maturity, will change...hopefully for the better.  If we limit the doors available to them, prison may be the only answer.

    You sound like someone who wants to be part of the solution in your community.  I hope that is the path you choose.  Too many ignore what is right outside their own door.  Whatever you do, I hope you stay safe.  



    Tying this back to Stop & Frisk (none / 0) (#102)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    Stop and Frisk does not solve the issues that cause crime.  Stop and Frisk may alter peoples behavior.  It may take guns off the streets. But...it will not remove the underlying causes.  Ignore the real problems, and there are many, and stop and frisk will be around a long time.

    Of course you're not (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 09:15:07 AM EST
    Poor people get a lot of help with college. I'm not going to provide links for MO Blue. Just look at the Federal FAFSA. Talk to any college financial aid counselor.

    Because you can't.

    Stringing together a bunch of right-wing talking points along with outright falsehoods poor people having access to free college educations is much easier than providing actual evidence.


    End drug prohibition... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    for starters.  The drug-dealing gang life is so lucrative, McDonald's or even "free" college can't compete with it.  Scholarships and grants may make college free, but ya still gotta eat.

    I'm open to any other suggestions that do not violate the civil rights of thousands upon thousands of innocent people.  Unarmed and non-dangerous people.  Why must they sacrifice their rights and suffer for your false sense of security?


    Why Are Liberals.... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    ...tasked to do this ?

    Not our job, and you know if you didn't let anyone go out of their homes the violence would end, but back in reality whatever the cops do has to be legal, regardless of your plight.