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

[Teddy B 17,252]

Crime has been reduced, but not from SAF or from it alone.

Ok, so when you said this in regards to stop and frisk: "No, because it hasn't reduced crime at all", it wasn't a correct statement, even though you'd like it to be because it's a form of racial profiling in your eyes.

Sure New York had and probably still has a crime problem. The crime rate has been dropping since 1990 in NYC and for that matter nationwide. From what I can find, this stop and frisk policy was implemented in earnest in 2004. To claim that stop and frisk had something to do with a drop in the crime rate doesn't add up. What about from 1990-2004?

I'd argue that if you did away with search warrants the crime rate would go down. Why stop there? Let's put the burden of proof on the defendant in trials. I bet that would reduce the crime rate as well. Who cares about the innocent people that go to jail.

If wanting to prevent the police from performing unreasonable searches makes me a gun nut, then I guess I'm a gun nut, even though I don't own a gun and have no desire to own one.

True that there have been no controlled studies on the exact effects of stop and frisk, other than crime rates have dropped since it's implementation. I am making no other claims other than that. There are numbers that weigh heavily in it's favor.

There have been no randomized, controlled experiments to test the efficacy of "stop and frisk." It is possible, however, to compare New York’s record in lowering crime with that of other cities that do not practice its proactive style of policing.

The New York Police Department’s critics favor High Point, N.C., Boston and Chicago as models the department should emulate. Boston’s crime rate is 4,107 crimes per 100,000 residents; High Point’s is 5,212 per 100,000 residents; New York’s is 2,257 per 100,000 residents. In 2010, Chicago’s murder rate was more than double that of New York.

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

The rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. You're the one creating the boogeyman using extreme hypotheticals that don't exist.That's the "gun nut" reasoning.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Took me a minute, but I think he means Rudy Giuliani. I'm thinking he didn't want to even try spelling Giuliani.

Thanks. That makes sense considering the timeline in NB's chart.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Teddy B

[Karee 4,190]

The rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. You're the one creating the boogeyman using extreme hypotheticals that don't exist.That's the "gun nut" reasoning.

Label it whatever you like. It's a simple fact that when governments start reducing the people's civil liberties, they don't usually do it all at once. The progressively do it hoping people wont notice. I personally have a problem with cops walking up to me and frisking me when I haven't done anything wrong, except walk down the street.

[Danno 1,228]

Took me a minute, but I think he means Rudy Giuliani. I'm thinking he didn't want to even try spelling Giuliani.

AS a public service-

This tip might be helpful in spelling.

Next to my address bar at the top of my browser is a spot to place Google searches, if I attempt to spell something in that space suggestions will drop down, those suggestions are typically spelled correct even if mine is a wild phonic guess.

After noting the correct spelling, I then disregard the google search.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Danno

[Karee 4,190]

AS a public service-

This tip might be helpful in spelling.

Next to my address bar at the top of my browser is a spot to place Google searches, if I attempt to spell something in that space suggestions will drop down, those suggestions are typically spelled correct even if mine is a wild phonic guess.

After noting the correct spelling, I then disregard the google search.

That's exactly what I do. NB will never do that though. He wears his lack of spelling knowledge as a badge of honour.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Label it whatever you like. It's a simple fact that when governments start reducing the people's civil liberties, they don't usually do it all at once. The progressively do it hoping people wont notice. I personally have a problem with cops walking up to me and frisking me when I haven't done anything wrong, except walk down the street.

And so do I, but it works in reducing crime.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Teddy B

[Karee 4,190]

And so do I, but it works.

Well that's debatable. Crime had been going down drastically prior to this policy. Even if it did have some benefit in reducing crime, it's not worth giving up your right to prevent the police from performing unreasonable searches. Call it a straw man argument all you want, but there's a reason we have constitutional protections. The cops shouldn't be able to frisk you just for being out in public and walking down the street. It's illegal under the 4th amendment.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Took me a minute, but I think he means Rudy Giuliani. I'm thinking he didn't want to even try spelling Giuliani.

I have no shame in admitting you are 100% correct.

Plus my spacebar is gone

That's exactly what I do. NB will never do that though. He wears his lack of spelling knowledge as a badge of honour.

Word

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

AS a public service-

This tip might be helpful in spelling.

Next to my address bar at the top of my browser is a spot to place Google searches, if I attempt to spell something in that space suggestions will drop down, those suggestions are typically spelled correct even if mine is a wild phonic guess.

After noting the correct spelling, I then disregard the google search.

The short amount of time, I spend here and just how non-serious take this shat would preclude me from doing that

I was a Network Engineer for a company with 200 nodes at one time. I hold certs from Microsoft,Cisco and comptia, so I know computers, oddly my give a damn broke

[Jacque67 7,328]

Label it whatever you like. It's a simple fact that when governments start reducing the people's civil liberties, they don't usually do it all at once. The progressively do it hoping people wont notice. I personally have a problem with cops walking up to me and frisking me when I haven't done anything wrong, except walk down the street.

Hey, if that photo you posted of you and the elephant is anything to go buy, I would frisk you.

[Karee 4,190]

Hey, if that photo you posted of you and the elephant is anything to go buy, I would frisk you.

I didn't take into account the possible benefits of being "frisked." Maybe I should change my position on that.

The short amount of time, I spend here and just how non-serious take this shat would preclude me from doing that

I was a Network Engineer for a company with 200 nodes at one time. I hold certs from Microsoft,Cisco and comptia, so I know computers, oddly my give a damn broke

I wouldn't go advertising that you hold certs from Microsoft. People may think less of you.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Hey, if that photo you posted of you and the elephant is anything to go buy, I would frisk you.

Did you see the size of the trunk on that elephant?

[Jacque67 7,328]

Well that's debatable. Crime had been going down drastically prior to this policy. Even if it did have some benefit in reducing crime, it's not worth giving up your right to prevent the police from performing unreasonable searches. Call it a straw man argument all you want, but there's a reason we have constitutional protections. The cops shouldn't be able to frisk you just for being out in public and walking down the street. It's illegal under the 4th amendment.

Diificult problem. The individual verses society. I was shocked to find that I could not consume alcohol ( except in designated places) nor smoke in Central Park. The constant round of patrol cars in the Park seemed over the top. I was surprised to find I could not dance or smoke at the pubs there. On the other hand NY has become a much safer place for the average (white?) citizen. It is difficult to draw the line, but at least in the States, unlike NKorea , it is up for discussion.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Ok, so when you said this in regards to stop and frisk: "No, because it hasn't reduced crime at all", it wasn't a correct statement, even though you'd like it to be because it's a form of racial profiling in your eyes.

True that there have been no controlled studies on the exact effects of stop and frisk, other than crime rates have dropped since it's implementation. I am making no other claims other than that. There are numbers that weigh heavily in it's favor.

The rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. You're the one creating the boogeyman using extreme hypotheticals that don't exist.That's the "gun nut" reasoning.

It's doesn't need to be in my eyes, it's been proven by a judge.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It's doesn't need to be in my eyes, it's been proven by a judge.

Great, that has what to do with whether or not stop and frisk reduces crime rates?