New York Post on Stop & Frisk

[wewo]

Saw a headline on the NY POST "Cops Handcuffed" and had to buy it. The Post is the "Republican" or "conservative" Newspaper in NY. Surprisingly, they bashed the Judge as a liberal and even had two op eds on how crime in New York will go up and minorities will die because of an end to stop and frisk. They also quoted Democratic Mayoral candidates as saying they would put a stop to Stop & Frisk, while the Republican candidates said they disagreed with the decision and hoped that Bloomy wins his appeal.

Glenn Beck agrees that stop & Frisk is unconstitutional and so do most members here, most of whom are not liberal. While I am liberal, I too believe stop and frisk is an abomination and blatantly unconstitutional. So my question is, what gives with this issue, does it cross party lines? Is the New York Press afraid of Bloomy? Wouldn't a liberal be more inclined to find stop and frisk unconstitutional? Are the members here more anti-cop than pro-law and order? Or are we simply intellectually honest?

Any insight/thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[MikeB0]

A lot of so called conservatives or Republicans are what I usually call Statists. They say they believe in the constitution, but seem to contradict themselves when it comes to Law and Order type issues or National Security type issues. Think McCain, King, Graham, etc.

[Quacked]

One would have to look at the motivation of the people who are making these statements-

The liberal democrats in NYC are pandering to the group who is being stopped and frisked to get their votes.

The republicans are doing the same to the upper middle class voters who are not being stopped and frisked but are afraid of crime and "those people".

This conservative republican wants Stop and Frisk to be eliminated because its a 4th amendment issue, not because I want your vote.

[vinnyg101]

Glenn Beck agrees that stop & Frisk is unconstitutional and so do most members here, most of whom are not liberal. While I am liberal, I too believe stop and frisk is an abomination and blatantly unconstitutional. So my question is, what gives with this issue, does it cross party lines? Is the New York Press afraid of Bloomy? Wouldn't a liberal be more inclined to find stop and frisk unconstitutional? Are the members here more anti-cop than pro-law and order? Or are we simply intellectually honest?

Any insight/thoughts on this would be appreciated.

I always marveled that S&F by NYCPD was not aggressively attacked by the Shaptongue types sooner.

If we look at crime back in the 70's and early 80's in NYC it was crazy. Punks, muggers, drug pushers and gangs were bold and rampant. So when S&F was implement...a big silent sigh of relief was felt. On the surface many thought it was working to curb the violence.

Yet, that pesky US Constitutional issue was always gnawing at the folks at city hall and 1 Police Plaza. Yet the authorities seem to love the Terry Stop rules and other court precedents to "justify!"

Now with any endeavor of humans there is always room for abuse and misuse. I believe if the cops had maintain a level of "honesty and honor" about implementing (I was never in favor of S&F) their 4th amendment violation with "honor and integrity" then the program may have been harder for the "bias" court to rule against the cops. To often some cops (many) would just jump out of a car and grab a guy and say all sorts of crazy threats to some due named Carlos or DeShawn. It was all about race. Cops would stop a black or PR guy more than once in the same day just for walking up the street. The cops forgot the old adage, "Honor among thieves!"

Keep in mind that the solution for decreasing violence in NYC or anywhere in America has nothing to do with empowering Jack Booted Thugs with shields, dogs and guns to run around like the Stazi [sic] of Germany and grab people off the street and search them.

What really fueled the S&F was under Big Mamma Bloomberg: guns! got to get more guns! They lost their minds. So in their pursuit for all of those guns that needed to be taken off the streets your 4th was crushed hourly: all in the name of the anti 2nd amendment crowd.

[Qtrborecrazy]

Would I like cops jumping out of their cars and throwing me up on the wall for they may think I might have a weapon or they may think I might be going to commit a crime HELL NO. Just as I don't think that the NSA, FBI, CIA or any other government agency spying on me without a warrant.

[Pilot321]

Let's be clear. The New York lefty judge did NOT find stop and frisk un-Constitutional. She found the perceived racial profiling component un-Constitutional, so NYC Police can still stop and frisk that just can't do it to black people in black neighborhoods in larger numbers than other races.

[Quacked]

Let's be clear. The New York lefty judge did NOT find stop and frisk un-Constitutional. She found the perceived racial profiling component un-Constitutional, so NYC Police can still stop and frisk that just can't do it to black people in black neighborhoods in larger numbers than other races.

Quite right, the best part is the kick in the nuts to Bloomberg. Anything that sheds light on the issue in the public is a step in the correct direction. In reality I do not see it changing soon.

[GeneCC]

The problem I have with "Stop 'n Frisk" is the "probable cause" part. What part of "Walking on the sidewalk" constitutes "Probable Cause"?

Loitering is even controversial. If you meet someone in the street and are talking is that "loitering"? How about if you're waiting to meet a friend on the street? Is that loitering? You got into a fight with your GF and are sitting outside cooling off. Is that "loitering"?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Search and Seizure without probable cause. What if the Police discover something? Prescription meds, work tools, and so on? Could someone be charged for carrying a pair of pliers or screwdriver (burglary tools)? How about prescription drugs for chronic pain (Will we have to carry Doctor's letters with us too?)? My leatherman has a knife, will I be charged with carrying a prohibited offensive weapon (what does Case Law say about such things?)?

How about if you meet someone, get their phone number and the Police "search" your cell phone? You don't know that this person is a "fugitive from Justice", it's not like people advertise that sort of thing when you meet them, yes? Now you're "associating with a fugitive from justice" and get arrested.


As I recall the crime rate in NYC fell because the Police under Giuliani began to prosecute folks for "petty crimes". You took care of the property crimes and small time stuff and the big stuff settled itself out.

Stop 'n Frisk is such a sledgehammer approach to problems...

[GeneCC]

Let's be clear. The New York lefty judge did NOT find stop and frisk un-Constitutional. She found the perceived racial profiling component un-Constitutional, so NYC Police can still stop and frisk that just can't do it to black people in black neighborhoods in larger numbers than other races.

Where in the Constitution does "Equal Protection" apply to races?

Where in the Constitution does "Probable Cause" not apply?

We truly seem to live on the other side of the Looking Glass these days.

[GeneCC]

What really fueled the S&F was under Big Mamma Bloomberg: guns! got to get more guns! They lost their minds. So in their pursuit for all of those guns that needed to be taken off the streets your 4th was crushed hourly: all in the name of the anti 2nd amendment crowd.

There are linkages between parts of the original Bill of Rights. Break one and you jeopardize the remainder.

Bloomberg is a frightening man. He is so powerful, and leverages his power with Political Force, and thinks nothing of treating "mundanes" as "subjects" to his whims.

Such people are a pestilence upon the land.