New York's stop-and-frisk policy unconstitutional, judge rules

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A federal judge ruled Monday that the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy violates the Constitution, in part by unlawfully targeting blacks and Latinos.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruling on a class-action lawsuit, wrote that the policy violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches, finding that police made at least 200,000 stops from 2004 to June 2012 without reasonable suspicion.

[Teddy B 17,252]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A federal judge ruled Monday that the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy violates the Constitution, in part by unlawfully targeting blacks and Latinos.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruling on a class-action lawsuit, wrote that the policy violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches, finding that police made at least 200,000 stops from 2004 to June 2012 without reasonable suspicion.

I wonder if she's any relation to my favorite judge Sheindlin:

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I wonder if she's any relation to my favorite judge Sheindlin:

She gives you the business when you go on her show

[Teddy B 17,252]

She gives you the business when you go on her show

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

good news

[Karee 4,190]

I wonder if she's any relation to my favorite judge Sheindlin:

Now the constitutionality of the policy is in jeopardy, awaiting a decision from Judge Shira “Don’t Call Me Judy” Scheindlin, the judge the City decided to embarrass by commissioning a report accusing her of bias because the City is incredibly stupid.

Source:

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/eric-holder-wants-to-stop-and-frisk-the-nypd/

[Darnell 8,478]

Does NYC need troop patrols, armed with rubber-bullet shooting M-16s? Israel uses something similar, so it's not that much of a stretch to use the gear.

[Danno 1,228]

End result, more victims, it's NY who cares.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A federal judge ruled Monday that the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy violates the Constitution, in part by unlawfully targeting blacks and Latinos.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruling on a class-action lawsuit, wrote that the policy violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches, finding that police made at least 200,000 stops from 2004 to June 2012 without reasonable suspicion.

I agree it violated rights of all people. Always about race for some reason.

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.upworthy.com/meet-the-17-year-old-who-blew-the-lid-off-racial-profiling-with-his-ipod

[Danno 1,228]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A federal judge ruled Monday that the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy violates the Constitution, in part by unlawfully targeting blacks and Latinos.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruling on a class-action lawsuit, wrote that the policy violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches, finding that police made at least 200,000 stops from 2004 to June 2012 without reasonable suspicion.

Q: Why don't they mention that men were also targeted?

Men were a huge disproportion amount of people stopped, why no concerns over the blatant sexism?

Men are about 50% of the population but are confronted by police at much greater rates than their population would suggest they should be.

[Karee 4,190]

Q: Why don't they mention that men were also targeted?

Men were a huge disproportion amount of people stopped, why no concerns over the blatant sexism?

Men are about 50% of the population but are confronted by police at much greater rates than their population would suggest they should be.

Interesting point.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

End result, more victims, it's NY who cares.

No, because it hasn't reduced crime at all. That, on top of the fact that blacks and latinos are the only ones really affected by it just adds more fuel to the fire.

I agree it violated rights of all people. Always about race for some reason.

Because whites and asians are practically invisible by NYC standards.

Q: Why don't they mention that men were also targeted?

Men were a huge disproportion amount of people stopped, why no concerns over the blatant sexism?

Men are about 50% of the population but are confronted by police at much greater rates than their population would suggest they should be.

This has been brought out as well. Want to carry a gun, have your girlfriend do carry it for you.

Interesting point.

I just brought this up in my last point. A writer about SAF said the same thing, if you want to carry a gun, have your girl carry it since they don't check females. The whole system is just jacked up.

[Teddy B 17,252]

No, because it hasn't reduced crime at all. That, on top of the fact that blacks and latinos are the only ones really affected by it just adds more fuel to the fire.

Crime rates have dropped substantially since the stop and frisk program was implemented.

Only New York’s policing revolution, which began in 1994 and seeks to prevent crime before it happens, explains the distinction. Poverty and unemployment were higher in New York than in the nation as a whole over the last decade and a half. New York’s rates of drug use, income inequality and student failure did not go down.

What has changed is the city’s style of policing. Since 1994, the police department has deployed officers to areas where law-abiding residents were being most victimized and has asked those officers to intervene in suspicious behavior before a crime happens. Stop and frisk has been a vital part of that approach. David Weisburd, a George Mason University criminologist, found in a recent unpublished paper that those stops have been targeted with pinpoint precision to the street segments where crime is highest.

One purpose of stop and frisk is to deter criminals from carrying guns, in order to minimize spur-of-the-moment shootings. That deterrence has taken place. Street gangs now keep “community guns” in communal locations rather than on their person, to avoid a gun possession arrest if they are stopped. The city’s astounding homicide drop — 82 percent from 1990 to 2009 — is driven by a decline in gun crime, which disproportionately affects black males. In 2011, guns were used in 61 percent of all homicides, but 86 percent of black males between the ages of 16 and 21 killed that year died from gunfire, according to N.Y.P.D. data.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/17/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime/to-see-its-value-see-how-crime-rose-elsewhere

[Karee 4,190]

Crime rates have dropped substantially since the stop and frisk program was implemented.

I think crime rates always go down when you start marching down the road towards becoming a police state. I would guess the crime rate in North Korea is pretty low.