View Full Version : Stop and Frisk ruled Unconstitutional Eff You Bloomberg!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-usa-newyork-police-idUSBRE97B0FK20130812
(Reuters) - A judge ruled on Monday the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" crime-fighting tactic unconstitutional, dealing a stinging rebuke to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had argued the practice drove down the city's crime rate.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin called it "indirect racial profiling" because it targeted racially defined groups, resulting in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics while the city highest officials "turned a blind eye," she said.
"No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," Scheindlin wrote in her opinion.
As part of her ruling, Scheindlin ordered the appointment of an independent monitor and other immediate changes to police policies. Her "remedies" address two lawsuits, one brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the other by the Center for Constitutional Rights.
"Today is a victory for all New Yorkers," the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "After more than 5 million stops conducted under the current administration, hundreds of thousands of them illegal and discriminatory, the NYPD has finally been held accountable. It is time for the city to stop denying the problem and work with the community to fix it."
generalmeow
08-12-2013, 11:46
Are you in favor of this, or not?
I agree with police not being allowed to do this. Why should someone be stopped and frisked without being suspected of committing a crime? I would be pissed if I was stopped and frisked. I would consider it a violation of my rights.
So they might be able to stop some crimes by catching the bad guys before the fact. They could stop even more crimes by frisking everyone before they are allowed to leave their house, or frisking and check your papers checkpoints everywhere. No thanks.
Bloomberg and his jackbooted personal army can suck my left nut. Stop and frisk is absolutely equal to "Paperz, pleeaz..."
Good! I'm happy to see Bloomberg's desire to be a dictator keeps getting shut down at every turn. I know a great activity he could try on for size- jump into a vat of chum, then dive into shark infested waters.
Good! I'm happy to see Bloomberg's desire to be a dictator keeps getting shut down at every turn. I know a great activity he could try on for size- jump into a vat of chum, then dive into shark infested waters.
What have you got against sharks?
I think he's a great candidate for Volcano Diving...
What have you got against sharks?
I think he's a great candidate for Volcano Diving...
Might piss off Pele, and all Hawaiians know you don't mess with her.
So when is the 7 round magazine BS going to go before a judge? I know they overturned his High-Capacity beverage law... Seems to me these are the same type of thing and a precedent was set.
JohnTRourke
08-12-2013, 15:11
so, you really think it's going to stop just because of some silly court ruling? puzleeez, we are way past that point. laws are for the little people.
What have you got against sharks?
I think he's a great candidate for Volcano Diving...
[facepalm]You're right! That's a grave disrespect to sharks. Mea culpa. Volcano diving? Too unreliable. I would say he should go skydiving with an unreliable chute, but then the liability would fall on the person who packed the chute, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, despite the fact that we wouldn't have to deal with Bloomy ever again.
BPTactical
08-12-2013, 17:52
Every once in a great while there is a judge that still believes in the Constitution.
It is this little ray of common sense that shows there is still hope for our country.
XC700116
08-12-2013, 18:06
Anyone else find it somewhat disheartening that the article takes you all the way to the 4th from the last paragraph before it even mentions the 4th amendment? I mean, that is the core of the matter but the majority of the article focuses on the "racial profiling" aspect of it as if had it been applied evenly they'd think it'd be just fine? IDK maybe I'm a bit jaded but IMO the Article should have started off with "Stop and Frisk Ruled Unconstitutional Under the 4th Amendment" as that is the only real and valid reason for it to be ruled upon.
Well I agree with all the posters here. F Bloomberg for these unconstitutional practices.
I see this as a win for the NYCLU that we would usually be against because they played the race card. However, I also see this as a win for everyone and am glad to hear the ruling.
Aloha_Shooter
08-12-2013, 19:36
I guess I'm in the minority here. As much as I like to see Bloomberg get swatted, the judge's rationale of "indirect racial profiling" is more politically correct BS. It's this kind of crap that makes TSA search as many grandmas from Peoria or kids from Wichita as 20-something males from Riyadh or Islamabad.
I guess I'm in the minority here. As much as I like to see Bloomberg get swatted, the judge's rationale of "indirect racial profiling" is more politically correct BS. It's this kind of crap that makes TSA search as many grandmas from Peoria or kids from Wichita as 20-something males from Riyadh or Islamabad.Is the TSA doing that to be racially "fair", or because they have a corncob up their ass at that particular moment and just choose to grab whoever they feel like pissing off?
Aloha_Shooter
08-12-2013, 20:00
Is the TSA doing that to be racially "fair", or because they have a corncob up their ass at that particular moment and just choose to grab whoever they feel like pissing off?
They're doing it because CAIR and the ACLU protest "racial profiling". As stupid as you may think a lot of government workers are, do you really think they believe an 83-year-old black or white Grandma is a terrorist threat? Interestingly, the guys I'd send overseas (always in civvies using a normal blue passport per our OPSEC and ORM guidelines) would get picked for "secondary search" about half the time.
They're doing it because CAIR and the ACLU protest "racial profiling". As stupid as you may think a lot of government workers are, do you really think they believe an 83-year-old black or white Grandma is a terrorist threat? Interestingly, the guys I'd send overseas (always in civvies using a normal blue passport per our OPSEC and ORM guidelines) would get picked for "secondary search" about half the time.So do you think there is data collected on the "quotas" fulfilled?
And I wasn't saying these TSA agents were all stupid, but rather vindictive. Look at them funny and get a search.
Caveat: I have encountered a few truly ignorant agents as well as plain mean ones.
NYPD has been doing "stop and frisk" long before Bloomberg was mayor. It's been going on since the 1980s at least. No probable cause required either. They do full vehicle searches over minor traffic infractions too . . . 9 mph over the speed limit or failure to signal a lane change and they're dumping out your wife's purse and opening suitcases in the trunk . . . and that is pretty much state wide.
Whats shitty is this got going to begin with. Either they thought lets give it a try a hope no one objects, or it didn't cross their mind that this is constitutional. Some one once said what is objectionable to the first generation is embraced by the next generation. Thats why the Constitution is so at risk. When my five year old is my age private will be a word from another time.
Whats shitty is this got going to begin with. Either they thought lets give it a try a hope no one objects, or it didn't cross their mind that this is constitutional. Some one once said what is objectionable to the first generation is embraced by the next generation. Thats why the Constitution is so at risk. When my five year old is my age private will be a word from another time.
So will "rights" and "Constitution." Unless of course we end this crap yesterday.
SamuraiCO
08-12-2013, 21:00
We're support to be a bunch of white racist's and not care that this is happening to minorities in NY. Glad to see support from this aspect. I think the program was not random and the cops used some judgement but this policy may have gotten away from themselves much like the IRS zeroing in on TEA Party non profits. Too much power corrupts.
Took a body language glass at a Krav Maga training weekend. The LEO who taught us teaches other LEO's how to read body language and look for tells. He explained the program started with only going after those who were BOLO for a crime. If guns involved cops would look for suspects who would be "touching" where they have their gun tucked. It is a nervous habit but a tell non the less. Like stated maybe the program got away and more abuse started to occur.
I guess I'm in the minority here. As much as I like to see Bloomberg get swatted, the judge's rationale of "indirect racial profiling" is more politically correct BS. It's this kind of crap that makes TSA search as many grandmas from Peoria or kids from Wichita as 20-something males from Riyadh or Islamabad.
This is what I meant. You phrased it much better.
From what I've heard, it originally started with officers being permitted to frisk someone they legitimately contacted "for the officer's safety" to make sure they didn't have a concealed weapon, then expanded it to cops being able to frisk suspicious individuals whose actions made it appear they were about to commit a violent crime . . . but then New York just went crazy with it and encouraged their police to randomly and arbitrarily search anyone they wanted, and the courts and politicians backed up that policy all the way, with zero oversight.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.