This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore kovalev6. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
When all is said and done, the bottom line is the courts have ruled stop-and-frisk, without demonstrated probable cause, is unconstitutional. Period!
Of course, those who disagree can appeal that ruling up to and including the Supreme Court.
One does not enforce the law by breaking other laws. And, if one does, the courts will probably dismiss the case.
"Stop and frisk" without just cause is a violation of the Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches, and the courts have ruled as such. There are limits to police power as there are limits to all power.
And, apparently, the data shows that tactic is used far more often against minorities than others.
I am as much against illegal firearms as anyone can be, and have made that clear in these threads repeatedly. However, "stop-and-frisk" without just cause is also illegal. All of law, which is ultimately based on the Constitution, is a matter of balancing rights. Taken to one extreme we have anarchy, and taken to the other we have totalitarianism.
Given enough power any behavior can be suppressed, as totalitarian regimes have shown over human history.
Bottom line: police cannot search a person on the street without just cause, and cannot search a home without a warrant, which involves convincing a judge there is just cause to do so.
And, furthermore, if you want to make a case for any cause-and-effect you need evidence beyond causality.
Posted by WernerS2
If I read you right you are not saying S&F wasn't a successful policy of preventing violent crime you are only saying based on a recent judges ruling it is unconstitutional It was ruled a form of racial profiling.
You state the tactics were shown to be used far more against minorities than others and I agree. I would also ask you when was the last time you were in one of the kill zones we are talking about? The neighborhoods we are talking about are almost 100% minority so the fact more minorities are stopped is hardly racial profiling especially when a number of the police stopping them in these communities are a minority themselves.Having come from one of these neighborhoods I can tell you "just cause" is a whole different animal and spotting the ones up to no good is not as difficult as one from the outside may think. The police are familiar with the neighborhood and believe me I've seen them operate, I have never seen them stop anyone without "just cause". The problem as I see it is that the people making the rules don't have to deal with the violence others do. I wonder how they would rule if it was their neighborhood, their 3 year old child that was shot in a crossfire between rival gangs as just happened in Chi. You can't have it both ways, you can't say you're against gun violence then turn a deaf ear to the carnage in some of our cities that are more dangerous than the streets of Iraq. All you are hurting is the innocent law abiding citizens that have to bury their children because they dared take a walk outside. Let's put their rights first. I always told my kids if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
Posted by kovalev6
Posted by WernerS2
And if an activist judge did not rule against it you'd be 100% on board, good to know because Bloomberg has appealed his ruling.