Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The case went to trial on March 18th through 20th, 2013. On August 12th, 2013, Judge Scheindlin handed down two rulings in favor of the plaintiffs, one on liability and one dealing with remedies.[9] The remedies opinion also applied to Ligon, et al. v. City of New York, a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, The Bronx Defenders, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and the law firm Shearman & Sterling LLP challenging the use of stops and frisks in private buildings through what is known as Operation Clean Halls.[10] Included in Judge Scheindlin's remedies opinion were a number of significant measures, including the establishment of an independent monitor to oversee the police department's reform efforts.[11] On October 31st, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the City's motion to stay the remedial opinion, and remanded the case to District Court to be heard by a new judge.[12] However, the City indicated on January 30th, 2014 that it will drop its appeal.[13]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New_York
You are very wrong. Scheindlin ruled against NYC on this matter. The Bloomberg administration appealed the decision, however the de Blasio administration DROPPED the appeal.
Therefore as per the federal judge's ruling stop and frisk WITHOUT someone actively committing a crime is unconstitutional as per the city's settlement of this federal lawsuit.
Cops don't make laws, and pointing a link from a ruling nearly 50 years ago is disingenuous, as it has nothing to do with recent issues with policing.
So, as things stand, cops in NYC may not stop someone UNLESS they catch them doing a crime. A person merely walking down the street or standing outside cannot be stopped or frisked. It's pretty much well known too cops can't stop and frisk around the city, and one's lawyer would have a field day with an incident of an officer stopping someone without just cause (meaning they saw them commit a crime).
Not going to debate this one with you because there's so much wrong with that post there's no where to even start.
Terry v Ohio is the decision which to this day dictates how the police are allowed to proceed during street encounters. It established reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, is about to be, or has been as the legal basis for a stop. The case that handled "stop and frisk" in NYC changed nothing. DeBlasio dropping the appeal only changed the way stops are recorded in NYC by the NYPD. Now there's a new form and supervisors have to review them immediately. Those were literally the only changes made.
No where outside of NYC was policing affected as the Supreme Court makes those decisions, not Judge Schiendlin who was subsequently repremanded for this decision, which is why the 2nd Circuit remanded the case. The fact that DeBlasio chose to agree with the flawed decision only affects the NYPD.
Only Terry v Ohio applies legally. You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. No other way to say it.
Not going to debate this one with you because there's so much wrong with that post there's no where to even start.
Terry v Ohio is the decision which to this day dictates how the police are allowed to proceed during street encounters. It established reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, is about to be, or has been as the legal basis for a stop. The case that handled "stop and frisk" in NYC changed nothing. DeBlasio dropping the appeal only changed the way stops are recorded in NYC by the NYPD. Now there's a new form and supervisors have to review them immediately. Those were literally the only changes made.
No where outside of NYC was policing affected as the Supreme Court makes those decisions, not Judge Schiendlin who was subsequently repremanded for this decision, which is why the 2nd Circuit remanded the case. The fact that DeBlasio chose to agree with the flawed decision only affects the NYPD.
Only Terry v Ohio applies legally. You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. No other way to say it.
This is the NYC forum, and so we were speaking about NYC.
Re: De Blasio settled the cast, so Scheindlin's ruling concerning the NYPD stands. It's legal.
One cannot stop and frisk anyone UNLESS one catches them in a crime, in NYC, as Scheindlin ruled and as de Blasio settled.
I don't think any other city had stop and frisk to the degree that Bloomberg had it, and that was partly what led to the court case.
From time to time I lived in both the South and the West, and one never heard of stop and frisk. No one was randomly stopped and searched.
This is the NYC forum, and so we were speaking about NYC.
Re: De Blasio settled the cast, so Scheindlin's ruling concerning the NYPD stands. It's legal.
One cannot stop and frisk anyone UNLESS one catches them in a crime, in NYC, as Scheindlin ruled and as de Blasio settled.
I don't think any other city had stop and frisk to the degree that Bloomberg had it, and that was partly what led to the court case.
From time to time I lived in both the South and the West, and one never heard of stop and frisk. No one was randomly stopped and searched.
Oy vey. Am a proponent of Stop & Frisk. We need it to keep our neighborhoods safe from the savages. De Blowsio is an idiot, and the fact that he continues to be at odds with the NYPD just shows what a moron he is and why we've had these crazy shootings and murders this year.
Oy vey. Am a proponent of Stop & Frisk. We need it to keep our neighborhoods safe from the savages. De Blowsio is an idiot, and the fact that he continues to be at odds with the NYPD just shows what a moron he is and why we've had these crazy shootings and murders this year.
No. Judge ruled against it. Mayor accepted.
And stop and frisk did not keep the city safe, has not gotten rid of drugs, and in truly poor neighborhoods has not stopped violence or gotten rid of guns.
Certain police officers support it because obviously the more people locked up in jail the more they get to milk the state and ultimately taxpayers of resources.
I don't see how you can call yourself a man and be so desperately need "protection".
And stop and frisk did not keep the city safe, has not gotten rid of drugs, and in truly poor neighborhoods has not stopped violence or gotten rid of guns.
Certain police officers support it because obviously the more people locked up in jail the more they get to milk the state and ultimately taxpayers of resources.
I don't see how you can call yourself a man and be so desperately need "protection".
You think these crazies walking around here shooting innocent people should be out and about? Yes, we need protection from these savages. What happened to that cop in the Bronx was ridiculous, and how you can act as if we as a society don't need protection from such animals is disturbing but not shocking. Perhaps Stop & Frisk stops that nut job from killing that cop and then offing himself, but I'm not a man for believing in living in a civilized world. Don't make me laugh.
Oy vey. Am a proponent of Stop & Frisk. We need it to keep our neighborhoods safe from the savages. De Blowsio is an idiot, and the fact that he continues to be at odds with the NYPD just shows what a moron he is and why we've had these crazy shootings and murders this year.
You think these crazies walking around here shooting innocent people should be out and about? Yes, we need protection from these savages. What happened to that cop in the Bronx was ridiculous, and how you can act as if we as a society don't need protection from such animals is disturbing but not shocking. Perhaps Stop & Frisk stops that nut job from killing that cop and then offing himself, but I'm not a man for believing in living in a civilized world. Don't make me laugh.
That guy obviously would not have been stopped by stop and frisk considering he went as far as to kill a cop.
Oy vey. Am a proponent of Stop & Frisk. We need it to keep our neighborhoods safe from the savages. De Blowsio is an idiot, and the fact that he continues to be at odds with the NYPD just shows what a moron he is and why we've had these crazy shootings and murders this year.
I don't see a problem with stop and frisk, as long as it is not done in a discriminatory fashion, based on race or ethnicity. It should be done based on the police officer's believing there is some (valid) suspicion that the person in question may have a weapon.
Thankfully I don't live in a high-crime neighborhood, but I do work in one, and my clients who live there, in the projects, etc., often share with me that they feel stop and frisk kept their neighborhood safer in the past (before it was repealed) and more guns off the street, because people were less brazen about carrying guns around, for fear they would be frisked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
