Post News Group: Will Oakland adopt NYs "Stop-and-Frisk" Policy? (Jackson: houses, living)

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by jade408

And only 5% of the people stopped were later arrested. There would be some merit the stop and frisk if people were actually caught doing things. But if 95% of people stopped were innocent, then something is not working.

Crime has decreased in NYC and it isn't stop and frisk that has impacted things. They also implemented a ton of technological infrastructure changed that had a huge impact on crime rates.


I am on my phone, please forgive the typos.

It doesn't even matter for Oakland.

Stop and Frisk will NOT work in California PERIOD.

The Cali mindset is "different". Californians do not put up with stuff like this without putting a major fight and not just with the courts either. Californians aren't afraid to protest, camp out and fight for DAYS to get their point across.

NYC is different. Whites are afraid of minorities here. There is noticeable racism, whereas in California there really isn't a huge black population and I never experienced racism at all. I can move into any area I want to just as long as I have the money. I'm not judged on my skin color alone, but on how I come across and how much money is my pocket. It's not this way in NYC.

Stop and Frisk doesn't work and it's not the reason why crime is down in NYC. Decent middle class blacks and puerto ricans have been fleeing NYC for the last 20 years. What you have left are the "lifers", poor with nowhere to go, and civil service people who will never, ever give up those benefits no matter how bad they are treated. There are old school blacks that fled the south who are living in the projects or dilapidated homes who'll tell you that they will never, ever go back to their southern "roots", because they don't believe that kind of "evil" can change.

They said yes, white folks maybe racist in NYC, but it in no way compares to the evil of southern whites. It's not like they're lying, because when Obama won the second election all of the sickest most twisted tweets came from the south.

Bottomline, Oaklanders will NOT accept being treated like criminals, especially by majority white cops.

All of those whites that are afraid of living in Oakland need to go someplace where they would feel more "comfortable". Why move and live in places where you are afraid of everyone around you?

You're white. You can live ANYWHERE you want. Why purposely choose a place that scares the beejezus out of you?

[green_mariner]

They've already lost safety. "Losing freedom" is a fallacy as an argument against the policy, people aren't losing anything but a few minutes of their time, the average tele-markerter waste more of a person's time time than these temporary frisk.This law only has a real effect on LAW BREAKERS.

A telemarketer might waste more of my time, but I have a choice to hang up on a telemarketer. If a police officer stops me, I have to cooperate or risk arrest.

Another problem I have is this. If as an individual, I have not done anything to prove that I am criminal, if I have not broken ANY laws, then why stop me and pull me over? I haven't done anything. Why search me? That is called unreasonable search and seizure.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by jade408

And only 5% of the people stopped were later arrested.

Umm, only 1.4% of traffic stops result in an "arrest" or seizure. By your logic traffic stops aren't effective and there is no need for them.

Originally Posted by jade408

Crime has decreased in NYC and it isn't stop and frisk that has impacted things.

Umm the researcher I quoted has data that suggest it was effective in high crime neighborhoods where "stop-and-frisk" was implemented with great effort.

What are you basing your opinion on? Your personal experience 3,000 miles away in Oakland?

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

A telemarketer might waste more of my time, but I have a choice to hang up on a telemarketer. If a police officer stops me, I have to cooperate or risk arrest.

How is that different from when a cop attempts to pull you over? You have to cooperate or risk arrest as well. You can't simply drive away from a black & white with its lights on. You have to stop.

The simple fact is, stop and frisk isn't any more disruptive than your average traffic stop. In either case, if everything is fine, you get to go on with your day after a few minutes.

Oakland needs something like stop and frisk to stop the city from spiraling into a failed city. It worked for NYC, and with National Guard help, it would help in Oakland.

[Gentoo]

I think perhaps Oakland needs to do what San Diego did back in the day, being tailored more for Oakland though. Basically, known major gang members were rounded up and taken off the street. This caused the remaining gangs to decline, in some cases go extinct. The problem with Oakland is that they start things but don't finish them. The started with gang injunctions but now it needs to be taken to the next level. It worked beautifully in San Diego. Oakland needs to follow a model more like that, not like New York's.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

How is that different from when a cop attempts to pull you over? You have to cooperate or risk arrest as well. You can't simply drive away from a black & white with its lights on. You have to stop.

The simple fact is, stop and frisk isn't any more disruptive than your average traffic stop. In either case, if everything is fine, you get to go on with your day after a few minutes.

Oakland needs something like stop and frisk to stop the city from spiraling into a failed city. It worked for NYC, and with National Guard help, it would help in Oakland.

I am not going to get arrested for hanging up on a telemarketer. If I get pulled over for bad tail lights or for speeding, that is one thing. If I get pulled over for no obvious reason, other than being Black, then I will be angry. If I haven't broken the law, if I am not violating any ordinance, then why pull me over? How many times to I have to tell you it goes against the 4th amendment(unreasonable search and seizure)? If I am not breaking any laws, if there is no apparent reason for pulling me over and searching me, that it unreasonable search and seizure.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I think perhaps Oakland needs to do what San Diego did back in the day, being tailored more for Oakland though. Basically, known major gang members were rounded up and taken off the street. This caused the remaining gangs to decline, in some cases go extinct. The problem with Oakland is that they start things but don't finish them. The started with gang injunctions but now it needs to be taken to the next level. It worked beautifully in San Diego. Oakland needs to follow a model more like that, not like New York's.

That sounds like it could work. I mean, how much different from San Diego is Oakland that would necessitate stop and frisk?

[green_mariner]

Umm, only 1.4% of traffic stops result in an "arrest" or seizure. By your logic traffic stops aren't effective and there is no need for them.

This proves stop and frisk is a waste. If it worked, there would be more people arrested.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

I am not going to get arrested for hanging up on a telemarketer. If I get pulled over for bad tail lights or for speeding, that is one thing. If I get pulled over for no obvious reason, other than being Black, then I will be angry. If I haven't broken the law, if I am not violating any ordinance, then why pull me over? How many times to I have to tell you it goes against the 4th amendment(unreasonable search and seizure)? If I am not breaking any laws, if there is no apparent reason for pulling me over and searching me, that it unreasonable search and seizure.

First off, let's review what protection the 4th amendment actually gives you.

First, it establishes a privacy interest by recognizing the right of U.S. citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Second, it protects this privacy interest by prohibiting searches and seizures that are "unreasonable" or are not authorized by a warrant based upon probable cause. Third, it states that no warrant may be issued to a law enforcement officer unless that warrant describes with particularity "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If you aren't engaging in suspicious activity, and a cop pulls you over or stops you in the street, that's already illegal. You act like stop-and-frisk or traffic stops violate that requirement (they don't). If they do, you can get an attorney and sue the department. That's your outlet provided to you by the law. Oakland has lost over $60,000,000 in lawsuits levied against it's police department since 2000. It's a valid outlet.

Cops cannot pull you over for no reason, in fact, they can only pull you over for valid suspicion of a potential law breaking action (weaving in and out of lanes, driving too slow, too fast, etc). Same with stop-and-frisk, someone with a gun handle partially sticking out of their pants, someone with a little baggy of "stuff", etc.

Also in either case, you can state "I refuse to be searched unless [they] provide a warrant, AND it is in the presence of an attorney", and right there, they cannot search you on the spot and ensure yourself a proper due process of law. That being said, if you have nothing to hide, why would you turn a 5 minute search into a 3 hour fiasco.

Nowhere does it say "you can't be stopped for suspicious activity". I don't know about you, and what activities you engage in that cause you to be stopped by cops regularly, but as someone who probably has more decades on this planet than you, I've only been pulled over twice by police (both my fault for speeding), and NEVER stopped on the street for suspicious activity. The law works, and I'm living proof of it.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

This proves stop and frisk is a waste. If it worked, there would be more people arrested.

How does it prove that it's a waste? In fact it's 4x more effective than traffic stops in terms of getting valid arrest.

Also, you equate arrest to success. That's a logical fallacy. Stop-and-frisk is also a deterrent.

Since the the advent of the nuclear missile, it's never been used in war. Does that mean it's a waste and ineffective as a deterrent to enemy states?