Donald Trump says he would implement nationwide stop and frisk policy (governor, federal government)

[madison999]

And wallets, cell phones, change for the meter, underwear adjustment, cigarette lighter, tighten belt while walking shall I go on?

[DorianRo]

Its proven to stop thousands of Murders. The numbers don't lie.

Oh but everything is hunky dory as democrats would you have believe. Nevermind.

Its "unconstitutional". A document written by men who rarely bathed and believed in witches

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Why did they disregard the population stats?

You misunderstand. The judge disregarded the crime percentage stats. I asked why.

As to "grabbing something at their waist," last I checked it's still legal to reach for your pockets in the United States. Or adjust your belt. Or move your hands. The police don't get to presume that everyone is a criminal.

Those were all included as not acceptable reasons. The act that I'm specifically talking about is grabbing at something at their waist. Criminals frequently tuck weapons in waistbands. That's just the way it is. That's why Tamir Rice was shot... grabbing at the weapon in his waistband while advancing towards the squad car.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You misunderstand. The judge disregarded the crime percentage stats. I asked why.

Those were all included as not acceptable reasons. The act that I'm specifically talking about is grabbing at something at their waist. Criminals frequently tuck weapons in waistbands. That's just the way it is. That's why Tamir Rice was shot... grabbing at the weapon in his waistband while advancing towards the squad car.

I understand perfectly well what you meant. You don't understand what I wrote. Every single stop by a police officer has to be justified under the 4th Amendment. Not 1/100, not 1/10. Every single one. So you can't use the percentage of crimes committed by a race to justify stopping someone because of their race. Even if it were relevant, the correct percentage to look at would be what percentage of the race commits a crime (a tiny percentage for all races), not what percentage of crimes are committed by that race.

Every stop needs a reasonable suspicion that the detainee is involved in criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion can't be a hunch--there need to be specific facts the officer can articulate that justify the suspicion. Without reasonable suspicion, the stop is unlawful.

An American is entitled to grab at his or her waistband. As long as the 4th Amendment exists, we are not, at law, a police state. That you think grabbing at your waistband is a sign of criminality is insane.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by jojajn

That logic is a stretch.

It a stretch to the uninformed.

You don't think we intervene in other nations civil wars? What do you think the four Americans that got killed in Benghazi was about?

Or is it that you don't think people are going to retaliate because our government has killed everything they love?

There is no logic in your silly post. And to answer my own question to you. NO it's not sinking in and you don't get it.

[pknopp]

And people wonder why the police are disliked.......

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Why?

Not easy to sum that up in a soundbite, but essentially: 98% of those subjected to stop-and-frisk were perfectly innocent. In other words, you're disproportionately violating the integrity and privacy of a huge majority of honest non-white citizens based on the behavior of a very small minority. That's not in line with American legal principles.

The full reasoning is outlined in the judge's finding. Good reading. I'd drop in a link, but real life beckons.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

I understand perfectly well what you meant. You don't understand what I wrote. Every single stop by a police officer has to be justified under the 4th Amendment. Not 1/100, not 1/10. Every single one.

BS. SCOTUS upheld DUI roadblocks.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Not easy to sum that up in a soundbite, but essentially: 98% of those subjected to stop-and-frisk were perfectly innocent.

SCOTUS ruled DUI roadblocks to be Constitutional. How many of those are innocent?

[SAAN]

The thing about stop and frisk is that the cops would only find something on maybe 5 out of every 100 people they searched, but the sad reality is that usually its maybe 3-5 out of every 100 people that commit the awful crimes that we hear about in the communities as well too, so technically, they might be actually getting gun out of the hands of a bad person and potentially stopping a future crime at the expense of 95 innocent people.


But my beef with stop and frisk is that NYPD would literally group ANY black man as a potential criminal and you can usually tell by appearance who is the average joe that goes to work and pays their taxes and usually causes no problems vs street thugs. Appearance matters, as Person A in a suit, business causal or Polo & jeans is far less likely to be searched than Person B with a XL long tshirt and super baggy jeans falling off or currently sagging skinny jeans, but NYPD seemed to see no difference between person A & B at times.