Stop and Frisk

Conservative pundit Kyle Smith has a piece over at National Review with a simple admission: “We Were Wrong About Stop-and-Frisk.”

Smith looks at the controversial use of stop-and-frisk, an aggressive practice in which police stopped, questioned, and frisked suspects on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. A court struck down the policy in 2013, finding that it had been disproportionately used against minority residents. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also campaigned against the policy as a candidate that year, assuring New Yorkers that his election would be the end of it.

That led a lot of conservatives — and the police — to warn that crime would spike without stop-and-frisk. Reality, however, tells a different story, Smith explained:


"Today in New York City, use of stop-and-frisk, which the department justified via the 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, has crashed. Yet the statistics are clear: Crime is lower than ever. It’s possible that crime would be even lower had stop-and-frisk been retained, but that’s moving the goalposts. I and others argued that crime would rise. Instead, it fell. We were wrong."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/8/16865730/national-review-stop-and-frisk-police

It's refreshing to see someone admit that violating the constitution is wrong and unnecessary. Maybe it will catch on and people will accept more freedom from government harassment?

Maddog wrote:Conservative pundit Kyle Smith has a piece over at National Review with a simple admission: “We Were Wrong About Stop-and-Frisk.”

Smith looks at the controversial use of stop-and-frisk, an aggressive practice in which police stopped, questioned, and frisked suspects on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. A court struck down the policy in 2013, finding that it had been disproportionately used against minority residents. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also campaigned against the policy as a candidate that year, assuring New Yorkers that his election would be the end of it.

That led a lot of conservatives — and the police — to warn that crime would spike without stop-and-frisk. Reality, however, tells a different story, Smith explained:


"Today in New York City, use of stop-and-frisk, which the department justified via the 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, has crashed. Yet the statistics are clear: Crime is lower than ever. It’s possible that crime would be even lower had stop-and-frisk been retained, but that’s moving the goalposts. I and others argued that crime would rise. Instead, it fell. We were wrong."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/8/16865730/national-review-stop-and-frisk-police

It's refreshing to see someone admit that violating the constitution is wrong and unnecessary. Maybe it will catch on and people will accept more freedom from government harassment?  

The problem with stop and frisk was not government harassment, but racial discrimination. I don't see that in there.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Conservative pundit Kyle Smith has a piece over at National Review with a simple admission: “We Were Wrong About Stop-and-Frisk.”

Smith looks at the controversial use of stop-and-frisk, an aggressive practice in which police stopped, questioned, and frisked suspects on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. A court struck down the policy in 2013, finding that it had been disproportionately used against minority residents. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also campaigned against the policy as a candidate that year, assuring New Yorkers that his election would be the end of it.

That led a lot of conservatives — and the police — to warn that crime would spike without stop-and-frisk. Reality, however, tells a different story, Smith explained:


"Today in New York City, use of stop-and-frisk, which the department justified via the 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, has crashed. Yet the statistics are clear: Crime is lower than ever. It’s possible that crime would be even lower had stop-and-frisk been retained, but that’s moving the goalposts. I and others argued that crime would rise. Instead, it fell. We were wrong."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/8/16865730/national-review-stop-and-frisk-police

It's refreshing to see someone admit that violating the constitution is wrong and unnecessary. Maybe it will catch on and people will accept more freedom from government harassment?  

The problem with stop and frisk was not government harassment, but racial discrimination.  I don't see that in there.

It can be both.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The problem with stop and frisk was not government harassment, but racial discrimination.  I don't see that in there.

It can be both.

Well, I certainly understand. But the immediate problem with profiling is that it is directed usually at a single group, of which the authorities have prejudice against.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It can be both.

Well, I certainly understand.  But the immediate problem with profiling is that it is directed usually at a single group, of which the authorities have prejudice against.

So you support stop and frisk, if the stopping and frisking is done more equally?

So violating the 4th amendment is fine, as long as you violate it against all groups the same?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, I certainly understand.  But the immediate problem with profiling is that it is directed usually at a single group, of which the authorities have prejudice against.

So you support stop and frisk, if the stopping and frisking is done more equally?

So violating the 4th amendment is fine, as long as you violate it against all groups the same?

How can it be done more equally? The sin of it is its selectivity.

Look, the requirement of the Fourth Amendment is that you have reasonable suspiciion before frisking. All too often, the suspicion is based upon the race of the subject.

Another way to say it is, take a look at who doesn't get stopped and frisked.

Sadiq Khan today revealed that police will “significantly” increase the use of stop
and search to tackle soaring knife crime on London's streets. The Mayor
promised a “tougher crackdown” this year with the Met “ramping up” the fight against violent crime.


London Evening Standard

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So you support stop and frisk, if the stopping and frisking is done more equally?

So violating the 4th amendment is fine, as long as you violate it against all groups the same?

How can it be done more equally?  The sin of it is its selectivity.

Look, the requirement of the Fourth Amendment is that you have reasonable suspiciion before frisking.  All too often, the suspicion is based upon the race of the subject.

Another way to say it is, take a look at who doesn't get stopped and frisked.

Here's the best way to look at it. Free people are not stopped and frisked without probable cause, regardless of their color?

Although I know that this place is full of people are scared shitless of individual liberty.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Sadiq Khan today revealed that police will “significantly” increase the use of stop
and search to tackle soaring knife crime on London's streets. The Mayor
promised a “tougher crackdown” this year with the Met “ramping up” the fight against violent crime.


London Evening Standard

The Brits don't have a 4th amendment. No need, as the government knows best.

We have very much the same laws here, as your '4th amendment' gives to you lot over there...

Tommy Monk wrote:

We have very much the same laws here, as your '4th amendment' gives to you lot over there...

So is stop and frisk legal there?

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Sadiq Khan today revealed that police will “significantly” increase the use of stop
and search to tackle soaring knife crime on London's streets. The Mayor
promised a “tougher crackdown” this year with the Met “ramping up” the fight against violent crime.


London Evening Standard

The Brits don't have a 4th amendment. No need, as the government knows best.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

Well in this case they do...

USA murders per 100,000 people 42.01
UK Murders per 100,000 people 11.68
Australia Murders per 100,000 people 10.38

You're 4 times More likely to be murdered in the USA, You definitely should feel great about the fact Your 'freedom to be murdered' isn't prevented by the gov't

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The Brits don't have a 4th amendment. No need, as the government knows best.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

Well in this case they do...

USA murders per 100,000 people 42.01
UK Murders per 100,000 people 11.68  
Australia Murders per 100,000 people 10.38

You're 4 times More likely to be murdered in the USA, You definitely should feel great about the fact Your 'freedom to be murdered' isn't prevented by the gov't

None of those numbers are even close to correct, but I will grant you that our murder rate is higher.

I'll take my chances over being harassed by cops.

Maybe you can have one come tuck you in every night.

Veya, your numbers are per one million.

What was the murder rate in Nazi Germany I wonder?

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

We have very much the same laws here, as your '4th amendment' gives to you lot over there...

So is stop and frisk legal there?

Same as it is there...

Friskers, be careful and be gentle!! > http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/man-with-worlds-largest-penis-sparks-1145798

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So is stop and frisk legal there?

Same as it is there...

Can't do it in most parts of the US, and you can no longer even do it in NY.

In the US, an officer needs to articulate to you, what he suspects you have done, before he questions or searches you.

See, we didn't like the way were treated by British soldiers before we threw them all out.

Fucking Nazis.

But that is pretty much the same as here...!

Tommy Monk wrote:But that is pretty much the same as here...!

Sadiq Khan today revealed that police will “significantly” increase the use of stop
and search to tackle soaring knife crime on London's streets. The Mayor
promised a “tougher crackdown” this year with the Met “ramping up” the fight against violent crime.

Can't do that in Texas.

Of course I carry a pocket knife everywhere too, like a grown man should be able to do.

Legal to carry a pocket knife here too... as well as a whole host of other 'weapons'...


I carry a whole range of 'tools' around with me pretty much all the time... most of which are considered as 'dangerous weapons' if I had no legit reason to be carrying them...

Tommy Monk wrote:Legal to carry a pocket knife here too... as well as a whole host of other 'weapons'...


I carry a whole range of 'tools' around with me pretty much all the time... most of which are considered as 'dangerous weapons' if I had no legit reason to be carrying them...

What's a legit reason to carry a pocketknife?

It is legal here to carry a pocket knife just because you want to...


You should learn about UK law before you try to be clever about it...!

Tommy Monk wrote:It is legal here to carry a pocket knife just because you want to...


You should learn about UK law before you try to be clever about it...!

Then what are London cops frisking people to find?

Tommy Monk wrote:It is legal here to carry a pocket knife just because you want to... Unless you're black

I think it may be illegal still but there is 'police discretion' over having it for a valid reason and most would accept carrying a pocket knife.
but if you where teens/chavs/black then they'd pull you up for it.

Not law abiding citizens carrying a penknife to chop an apple for lunch, or sharpen a pencil etc...


Maybe you should learn about London crimes/rates before you try to get clever about it...!?

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It is legal here to carry a pocket knife just because you want to... Unless you're black  

I think it may be illegal still but there is 'police discretion' over having it for a valid reason and most would accept carrying a pocket knife.
but if you where teens/chavs/black then they'd pull you up for it.

So different people are treated differently?

Isn't that special.

Tommy Monk wrote:Not law abiding citizens carrying a penknife to chop an apple for lunch, or sharpen a pencil etc...


Maybe you should learn about London crimes/rates before you try to get clever about it...!?

If I walk around with this clipped to my pocket, will a cop stop me?

Tommy Monk wrote:It is legal here to carry a pocket knife just because you want to...


You should learn about UK law before you try to be clever about it...!

This was my actual post... before veya 'edited' it...

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Not law abiding citizens carrying a penknife to chop an apple for lunch, or sharpen a pencil etc...


Maybe you should learn about London crimes/rates before you try to get clever about it...!?

If I walk around with this clipped to my pocket, will a cop stop me?  

If I tried walking through a US airport with that clipped to my pocket, will a US cop stop me...?


I once got quite in trouble at a US airport because one of my 'friends' had drawn a mustache and pair of glasses on my passport picture...


If only I had just had a knife strapped to my belt instead... then I'm sure I would have sailed through...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:




If I walk around with this clipped to my pocket, will a cop stop me?  

If I tried walking through a US airport with that clipped to my pocket, will a US cop stop me...?


I once got quite in trouble at a US airport because one of my 'friends' had drawn a mustache and pair of glasses on my passport picture...


If only I had just had a knife strapped to my belt instead... then I'm sure I would have sailed through...!?

It would depend which side of the security gates you were on.

But I asked about in public, not in a secure area.

Are you saying that you can walk around US airports with that knife clipped to your belt, and on full view, without any chance of being stopped by a US cop because of it...!?





I don't believe that at all...!!!

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

How can it be done more equally?  The sin of it is its selectivity.

Look, the requirement of the Fourth Amendment is that you have reasonable suspiciion before frisking.  All too often, the suspicion is based upon the race of the subject.

Another way to say it is, take a look at who doesn't get stopped and frisked.

Here's the best way to look at it. Free people are not stopped and frisked without probable cause, regardless of their color?

Although I know that this place is full of people are scared shitless of individual liberty.  

Yeah, but it's got a context. And that context is the racism with which the stop and frisk procedure is administered. It's racism.

@maddog
you'd be in trouble down here.
unless you where near the bush or had fishing gear with you or something, you'd struggle to come up with a sufficient reason for carrying it. (defence it not allowable)

But as someone that was a teen and was living in a rough area when the law was introduced it dramatically reduced the amount of stabbings at the local train station, from a couple a week to one every few months.

there has been a significant reduction in violent crimes since the laws came in making it illegal to carry a weapon without valid reason (Validity determined by Cops Discretion)

@ tommy
I didn't edit your post, I quoted part of it.... and finished your sentence

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Here's the best way to look at it. Free people are not stopped and frisked without probable cause, regardless of their color?

Although I know that this place is full of people are scared shitless of individual liberty.  

Yeah, but it's got a context.  And that context is the racism with which the stop and frisk procedure is administered.  It's racism.

Do you speak English?

Let's say this happens in a small town in New Hampshire with no black people. Every one that is stopped is white because everyone there is white. Is it OK then?

veya_victaous wrote:@maddog
you'd be in trouble down here.
unless you where near the bush or had fishing gear with you or something, you'd struggle to come up with a sufficient reason for carrying it. (defence it not allowable)

But as someone that was a teen and was living in a rough area when the law was introduced it dramatically reduced the amount of stabbings at the local train station, from a couple a week to one every few months.

there has been a significant reduction in violent crimes since the laws came in making it illegal to carry a weapon without valid reason (Validity determined by Cops Discretion)

@ tommy
I didn't edit your post, I quoted part of it.... and finished your sentence

Crime has been dropping here too. Safest time since Texas started keeping records.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@maddog
you'd be in trouble down here.
unless you where near the bush or had fishing gear with you or something, you'd struggle to come up with a sufficient reason for carrying it. (defence it not allowable)

But as someone that was a teen and was living in a rough area when the law was introduced it dramatically reduced the amount of stabbings at the local train station, from a couple a week to one every few months.

there has been a significant reduction in violent crimes since the laws came in making it illegal to carry a weapon without valid reason (Validity determined by Cops Discretion)

@ tommy
I didn't edit your post, I quoted part of it.... and finished your sentence

Crime has been dropping here too.  Safest time since Texas started keeping records.  

it might have but it is still very high by comparison

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah, but it's got a context.  And that context is the racism with which the stop and frisk procedure is administered.  It's racism.

Do you speak English?  

Let's say this happens in a small town in New Hampshire with no black people.  Every one that is stopped is white because everyone there is white.  Is it OK then?

Duh!  It doesn't happen in New Hampshire.  It is inevitably a racially biased practice.

Why do you think it happens?  Why would the police single out a group of New Hampshire boys?  They wouldn't.

veya_victaous wrote:@maddog
you'd be in trouble down here.
unless you where near the bush or had fishing gear with you or something, you'd struggle to come up with a sufficient reason for carrying it. (defence it not allowable)

But as someone that was a teen and was living in a rough area when the law was introduced it dramatically reduced the amount of stabbings at the local train station, from a couple a week to one every few months.

there has been a significant reduction in violent crimes since the laws came in making it illegal to carry a weapon without valid reason (Validity determined by Cops Discretion)

@ tommy
I didn't edit your post, I quoted part of it.... and finished your sentence

Here in UK it is perfectly legal to carry a penknife of up to 3" blade length without any real reason required...


All manner of other 'tools/weapons' can also be freely carried around without question...!


When I'm travelling around between jobs, be it on train/tube or walking about etc, I'm carrying a considerable selection of 'tools'... all clearly visible to other members of public... and most being things you would definitely not want to be attacked with... but I have never once been stopped by a police officer for any of it...!!!


However... I was once pulled over in my car for a big nothing... cop searched my car and managed to find an old pair of my gloves that I'd forgotten about, an old computer keyboard with keys missing and didn't work anyway, and an old screwdriver that I'd never even seen before... and tried to lay it out as evidence that I was some sort of burglar...!

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you speak English?  

Let's say this happens in a small town in New Hampshire with no black people.  Every one that is stopped is white because everyone there is white.  Is it OK then?

Duh!  It doesn't happen in New Hampshire.  It is inevitably a racially biased practice.

Why do you think it happens?  Why would the police single out a group of New Hampshire boys?  They wouldn't.

Again. Hypothetically it happens to all white people. Can your brain do hypothetical?

Tommy Monk wrote:Are you saying that you can walk around US airports with that knife clipped to your belt, and on full view, without any chance of being stopped by a US cop because of it...!?

Mad dog...


Still waiting for answer...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Are you saying that you can walk around US airports with that knife clipped to your belt, and on full view, without any chance of being stopped by a US cop because of it...!?

Mad dog...


Still waiting for answer...!?

Knife laws are local. I can do it in Texas on the non secure side. You can't get through the checkpoints. So I couldn't fly with It, but I could walk into the airport and pick up a passenger.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Crime has been dropping here too.  Safest time since Texas started keeping records.  

it might have but it is still very high by comparison

No might about it. We have relaxed our weapons laws and crime has still dropped. Using your logic crime should have gone up as we made weapons more available.

Tommy Monk wrote:Are you saying that you can walk around US airports with that knife clipped to your belt, and on full view, without any chance of being stopped by a US cop because of it...!?





I don't believe that at all...!!!

Let me explain probable cause to you. Having a knife is not probable cause. Hell, having a gun on you is not probable cause. You have to be doing something illegal and possession is not illegal. Maybe I'll post some videos tomorrow.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Crime has been dropping here too.  Safest time since Texas started keeping records.  

it might have but it is still very high by comparison

No might about it.  We have relaxed our weapons laws and crime has still dropped.  Using your logic crime should have gone up as we made weapons more available.  

I never said Weapons are the only factor.

You need someone wanting/willing to commit violent crime and the means (weapon) to do it.
therefore there will be a terminal volume reflecting the amount of people wanting/willing to commit violent crime.
Reduced by the number unable to acquire the means to commit a violent crime.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No might about it.  We have relaxed our weapons laws and crime has still dropped.  Using your logic crime should have gone up as we made weapons more available.  

I never said Weapons are the only factor.

You need someone wanting/willing to commit violent crime and the means (weapon) to do it.
therefore there will be a terminal volume reflecting the amount of people wanting/willing to commit violent crime.
Reduced by the number unable to acquire the means to commit a violent crime.  

In fact this thread is about the government not harassing people any more. The cops said it would lead to an increase in crime, it didn't.

Crime us largely a socioeconomic and mental health problem. I have numerous weapons and they will never be used in a crime.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Not law abiding citizens carrying a penknife to chop an apple for lunch, or sharpen a pencil etc...

Maybe you should learn about London crimes/rates before you try to get clever about it...!?

If I walk around with this clipped to my pocket, will a cop stop me?  

My knife is bigger than your knife  !!!

Those English knife laws are even stricter than New York City's..

They have even outlawed "lock blade"/lock-back pocket knives over there (I reckon some doofus in the British guvm'nt has confused 'lockblade' knives with the likes of flick_knives and butterfly_knives -- and nobody has picked them up on it..) --  sheesh,  probably half my pocketknives are 'lock blades'.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Not law abiding citizens carrying a penknife to chop an apple for lunch, or sharpen a pencil etc...


Maybe you should learn about London crimes/rates before you try to get clever about it...!?

If I walk around with this clipped to my pocket, will a cop stop me?  

Yeah you'd be lifted straight away.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Duh!  It doesn't happen in New Hampshire.  It is inevitably a racially biased practice.

Why do you think it happens?  Why would the police single out a group of New Hampshire boys?  They wouldn't.

Again.  Hypothetically it happens to all white people. Can your brain do hypothetical?

It's not about me, Maddog.  Perhaps you feel insecure in your argument and you are angry at me for pointing out its weakness?  Concentrate.

Stop and frisk, without the racial component, is just a policeman doing his job.  Under Terry v. Ohio, a stop and frisk is legal when there is reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity:

Wiki wrote:Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." [italics added

Reasonable suspicion is the test, somewhat short of (less than) probable cause. Where the problem arose is where, repeatedly, the suspect turned out to be black (in the southwest, Hispanic).  Stop and frisk turned out to be profiling: stopping and frisking merely because a person was black.  The reasonable suspicion turned out to be the skin color of the suspect.

Cops are supposed to be looking out for genuine criminal activity, not engaging in racial hatred.  In addition to racism, it turns out to be a dereliction of duty.  A cop is rousting a black on one block, when an actual crime is taking place on the next.