Stop and Frisk Will Finally End in NYC

DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs

Avenger
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
25,025
Reaction score
10
Points
33
ku-xlarge.jpg


In the final, desperate days of his seemingly unending mayoralty, New York City's Michael Bloomberg has been handed yet another stinging defeat.

First, a new mayor was elected on a platform that essentially rejects Bloomberg's vision. Then his dream of a high-rise kingdom on Manhattan's East Side was killed by the City Council. And yesterday, an appeals court declined Bloomberg's attempt to keep the NYPD's Stop and Frisk tactic intact, all but ending the argument once and for all.

In August, Judge Shira Scheindlin of Federal District Court found the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy, which stopped young minority men on the street under the slightest of suspicions, to be unconstitutional. But Bloomberg vowed to fight the ruling, and actually scored some minor victories as Scheindlin was removed from the case and her order for an independent monitor to oversee the police department was blocked.

Yesterday, however, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that Scheindlin's ruling still stands, and that the appeal process should continue to run its course over the next few months. But Bloomberg is out of time. In just over a month, Bloomberg will no longer be mayor of New York, and the new mayor, Bill de Blasio, has vowed to end the city's appeal of the ruling.

"This marks the end of the Bloomberg administration's effort to short-circuit the appeals process and undo the district court's rulings before Bill de Blasio takes office," Christopher Dunn, the associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the New York Times.

While the city will still appeal the ruling over the next few weeks, there's little chance any appeal would be successful in that time frame. 12 years in office was still somehow too short for Bloomberg's agenda.

Good riddance, that really was some next level racist policy and I'm glad to see the minorities of NY finally get to be able to walk around their own neighborhoods without fear of getting hassled by the police just because they are of color
 
How do those policies even get passed these days in the US?
 
Like the patriot act it's passed in the guise of making the state safer
 
Let's harass anyone who isn't "us" because anyone who isn't "us" is a threat. :whatever:
 
Finally a brother can walk down the street without getting harassed by the man!

Still can shop in Macys though :(
 
Small enough that it's not worth having.

That's the question. Is it worth having if it saves one life? Or, is it not worth having if it doesn't save at least 100 lives? That's the duality of the police state. There is a fine line between freedom and safety. You have to sacrifice one or the other. There is no happy medium. Just saying that it's discrimination and should be stopped is only looking at one side of the coin. The highest gun crime rates are in neighborhoods with certain ethnic majorities. It's the same question as we have with the TSA at airports. With all these added security measures, is all of that worth it to stop one plane from going down or do we put a mathematical figure on it as a hard line to say yes or no?
 
Yup, stop and frisk ignored the consitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of people.

and for 90% of the searched targets there was NO EVIDENCE of wrong doing.

Ninety freakin percent!

I guess people of color don't deserve constitutional rights for some reason.

It boggles the mind it took a few years to get this Orwellian embarrassment to be thrown out.
 
That's the question. Is it worth having if it saves one life? Or, is it not worth having if it doesn't save at least 100 lives? That's the duality of the police state. There is a fine line between freedom and safety. You have to sacrifice one or the other. There is no happy medium. Just saying that it's discrimination and should be stopped is only looking at one side of the coin. The highest gun crime rates are in neighborhoods with certain ethnic majorities. It's the same question as we have with the TSA at airports. With all these added security measures, is all of that worth it to stop one plane from going down or do we put a mathematical figure on it as a hard line to say yes or no?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
 
Last edited:
yeah, i dont know how this was ever legal in the first place as it seems a clear violation of the 4th amendment. glad to see its dead. we can protect people without violating their rights.
 
That's the question. Is it worth having if it saves one life? Or, is it not worth having if it doesn't save at least 100 lives? That's the duality of the police state. There is a fine line between freedom and safety. You have to sacrifice one or the other. There is no happy medium. Just saying that it's discrimination and should be stopped is only looking at one side of the coin. The highest gun crime rates are in neighborhoods with certain ethnic majorities. It's the same question as we have with the TSA at airports. With all these added security measures, is all of that worth it to stop one plane from going down or do we put a mathematical figure on it as a hard line to say yes or no?

If a system isn't working or haven't produced results, it's not worth keeping in. Also, randomly stopping and frisking people is like finding a needle in a haystack of crime. The goal of stop-and-frisk is to find if there are illegal guns and contraband. You know what works better and is less invasive (well, less blatantly invasive)? Good police work. You think there are shortcuts for it, and in some ways those shortcuts may work once, and some will work better than others. But Stop-and-frisk was not only a shortcut, but an inefficient and intrusive shortcut.

Yes, we have the factor of fear, but the one question we have yet to solve as a nation, that I feel needs to be solved in order to truly move forward is "Where is the Line?"
 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

More importantly than that, there are other avenues that are less rights infringe-y and more actually effective that the police and the city could pursue.
 
Cops found 0.02% more guns thanks to stop and frisk.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...pons-recovered-tons-weed-smokers-jailed.shtml

Was it worth violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

Yes you took a few illegal guns off the street but you increased distrust for the police exponentially.

and what's the point of making one part of the community feel artificially safer when the rest of the community feels threatened and unfairly targeted? The feeling of increased safety is an illusion while the feeling of abuse and persecution is very real.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the persecuted people aren't white, which is fine by Bloomberg.
 
i know a lot of cops didnt agree with this policy, but did it because they had quotas to meet and were punished if they didnt do it. i wish they would have filled those quotas by stopping and frisking affluent white people in their uppity neighborhoods....this policy would have ended much faster after those people complained.
 
I don't know if it was posted here or not but there was a news report on how a corrupt department was filling quota by over reporting successes and under reporting criminal complaints.

One cop secretly recorded the illegal actions of his fellow cops and the police captain along with other senior ranking members arrested him and had him committed claiming he was paranoid. One of their things was filling the stop and frisk quota.

Here's the wiki article, I'll find the full story later.

The tapes include conversations related to the issues of arrest quotas and investigations. Schoolcraft says an overemphasis on arrests leads to wrongful arrests and bad police work. A recording from 31 October 2008 includes precinct commander Steven Mauriello ordering a raid on 120 Chauncy St.: “Everybody goes. I don’t care. You’re on 120 Chauncey and they’re popping champagne? Yoke ’em. Put them through the system. They got bandannas on, arrest them. Everybody goes tonight. They’re underage? **** it.” He orders: "Bring 'em in. Lodge them. You're going to go back out and process it later on."
 
I don't know if it was posted here or not but there was a news report on how a corrupt department was filling quota by over reporting successes and under reporting criminal complaints.

One cop secretly recorded the illegal actions of his fellow cops and the police captain along with other senior ranking members arrested him and had him committed claiming he was paranoid. One of their things was filling the stop and frisk quota.

Here's the wiki article, I'll find the full story later.

Despicable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"