0
livendive

How did this even make it to court?

By livendive, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

weekender    0

weekender
livendive

Did you read the examples in the article I linked? Maybe this, or this will help clear things up. I'm also opposed to Driving While Black stops, but Breathing While Black is beyond the pale. Have a warrant, witness a violation, or very clear and defensible probable cause, or leave them alone. "He looked like he was thinking about committing a misdemeanor" is bs, and no grounds for detaining and searching someone.

Blues,
Dave



I referenced the actual case. the actual facts the judge reviewed and her opinion. i did this because your comments are about this specific case.

The actual facts of the case are not at all similar to what you are implying. people are not being stopped because they live in a bad part of town as you stated. that is a falsehood.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
DanG

Quote

Yep. In order to get the guns, you have to violate several rights. Which is what I've written here all along. Disrespect of one right necessitates disrespect of all of them. In order to demonstrate how much contempt they have for the Second Amendment it is worthwhile to tarnish the 1st, 4th, 14th, and find more to ignore, too.



I agree.

The flip side of the coin is the people who think the 2nd is untouchable, but the 1st (at least as it applies to non-Christians and lefty newspapers), the 4th (at least as it applies to foreign looking folks), the 5th (at least as it applies to 'enemy combatants'), and the 14th (no qualifications) are disposable.



And I agree wholeheartedly. I'm one of those who thinks that Rights should be given "equal dignity." That is, the 1st is no less important than the 2nd - which is no less important than the 1st.

Unfortunately, the majority of the population doesn't see it that way. People have found their favorite rights and decided that other rights should be subservient. Some, like the NRA, gather to support the continuing existence of a right. On the flip side, there are organizations that actively lobby to terminate that right.

Or, you've got people who think that gays aren't entitled to equal protection. Or that "hate speech" should be banned. Or "flag burning" should be banned. Etc. It takes a special kind of abuser to unify the country in being pissed off. NSA monitoring kinda unified the country - in a way. I've only seen government officials support it. The public seems to be fairly united in its dislike. Even the President (who spent the last couple of months defennding it) is now floating trial baloons about adding more protections for people to it. But leaving out the important stuff.

It's why I'm libertarian. I love the 4th as much as the 1st as much as the 2nd as much as the 5th. I detect a great deal of civil libertarian in you, as well, Dan.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DanG    1

DanG
Quote

It's why I'm libertarian. I love the 4th as much as the 1st as much as the 2nd as much as the 5th. I detect a great deal of civil libertarian in you, as well, Dan.



I'm definitely a civil libertarian. I wish the Libertarian Party could get its act together. I haven't been able to support any of their candidates yet, but I'm hoping they form a viable alternative some day.

There's an excellent article in the New Yorker this week about civil forfeiture. It is apalling. Due process thrown right out the window, with a police profit motive to boot.

- Dan G

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

livendive    8

livendive
You do realize the (prevailing) claims of the plaintiffs do not match your position, right? I'm going to go out on a limb and wager the judge who ruled it unconstitutional is more informed on the specifics than you. That said, I agree with DaVinci that racial profiling shouldn't have even be a necessary argument. The practice is in violation of the 4th regardless of the color of the victims.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

sfzombie13    307

sfzombie13
since you are a libertarian, please try to explain to me how these dui checkpoints have been proven constitutional? it sounds to me much like a previous post, "show me your papers". just because they stop everyone? bullshit.
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

weekender    0

weekender
livendive

You do realize the (prevailing) claims of the plaintiffs do not match your position, right? I'm going to go out on a limb and wager the judge who ruled it unconstitutional is more informed on the specifics than you. That said, I agree with DaVinci that racial profiling shouldn't have even be a necessary argument. The practice is in violation of the 4th regardless of the color of the victims.

Blues,
Dave



I gave you examples of the actual facts of the case and the judges actual ruling. both of which do not match your claim that people are stopped due to where they live or their color. The judge herself had no problem with either stops but only with how the searches were carried out. Those are the facts. I referenced the judges opinion, not mine.

for the record i have never stated my position. I am only pointing out that you are making a false statement. i evidenced that with referencing the actual case and the judges ruling.

(edited to remove a nonsensical question/typo)
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

livendive    8

livendive
What I have stated:
- Police are stopping and frisking people without probable cause.
- A judge has ruled the actions are disproportionately and unconstitutionally directed at minorities.
- The plaintiffs have claimed that they were doing nothing wrong at the time and some could not be reasonably connected to suspicion of a crime.
- Detaining and frisking citizens without a warrant or clear probable cause violates the 4th amendment.

In which of those statements do you believe I'm lying?

Edit to add: Okay, I see I also said that the police were targeting victims on the basis of neighborhood. I'll admit this is debatable if it can be shown that they detain and search a similar number of people who are digging for their car keys or waiting for a friend in nicer neighborhoods.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

turtlespeed    212

turtlespeed
jakee



Do you want the police to conduct themselves like an occupying army?



Reality demands that in certain circumstances and places, it is inevitable.[:/]
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
Quote

since you are a libertarian, please try to explain to me how these dui checkpoints have been proven constitutional?



Because 6 Justices of the SCOTUS thought that keeping drunks off the streets was a good enough reason to stop everybody. I disagree with the finding of Constitutionality of it, thinking it an unreasonable suspicionless search. But when the Justices who decided that they are okay included Scalia, Kennedy and Blackmun it seems the ideological spectrum was covered. (It was another case where I could see that Brennan wasn't always wrong).


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

weekender    0

weekender
livendive

What I have stated:
- Police are stopping and frisking people without probable cause.
- A judge has ruled the actions are disproportionately and unconstitutionally directed at minorities.
- The plaintiffs have claimed that they were doing nothing wrong at the time and some could not be reasonably connected to suspicion of a crime.
- Detaining and frisking citizens without a warrant or clear probable cause violates the 4th amendment.

In which of those statements do you believe I'm lying?

Edit to add: Okay, I see I also said that the police were targeting victims on the basis of neighborhood. I'll admit this is debatable if it can be shown that they detain and search a similar number of people who are digging for their car keys or waiting for a friend in nicer neighborhoods.

Blues,
Dave



>"I can't believe we have people defending the practice of detaining and frisking people for no other reason than they happen to be in a bad neighborhood"

I referenced the actual case and the reason for stopping the suspect. the actual case does not at all seem similar to your claims. if you reread my post or research the case, you will see that Mr Floyd and Mr Lino were stopped for good reasons. Even the judge agreed. you claimed they were stopped for "no other reason than they happen to be in a bad neighborhood." i showed that not to be true based on the facts of this case.

i am not calling you liar, if i did, i do not recall and retract it. I said you are making false statements. I am not implying you are dishonest, just wrong. I am saying you are mistaken and not as knowledgable of the actual case as you seem to believe.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennedy    0

Kennedy
You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think. Some folks just refuse to understand that officers don't need PC to stop a person, or PC to frisk them. It doesn't matter if you explain Terry and subsequent cases, or run them through RS. The problem with the NY program was supervisors requiring quotas be met and a very few officers going one toenail over the line. There wasn't any systematic discrimination or civil rights violation.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DanG    1

DanG
Quote

Some folks just refuse to understand that officers don't need PC to stop a person, or PC to frisk them.



Well, they need, "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.'"

Quote

There wasn't any systematic discrimination or civil rights violation.



Many people disagree.

- Dan G

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
weekender

>"I can't believe we have people defending the practice of detaining and frisking people for no other reason than they happen to be in a bad neighborhood"

This is a falsehood. That is not what is happening. The police stop people according to the NY Criminal Procedure Law when, "reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal law."



[Reply]The judge reviewed 19 stops out of 4.4 million.



From the Judge's ruling:
Quote

• Between January 2004 and June 2012, the NYPD conducted over 4.4 million Terry stops.
• The number of stops per year rose sharply from 314,000 in 2004 to a high of 686,000 in 2011.
• 52% of all stops were followed by a protective frisk for weapons. A weapon was found after 1.5% of these frisks. In other words, in 98.5% of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found.
• 8% of all stops led to a search into the stopped person’s clothing, ostensibly based on the officer feeling an object during the frisk that he suspected to be a weapon, or immediately perceived to be contraband other than a weapon. In 9% of these searches, the felt object was in fact a weapon. 91% of the time, it was not. In 14% of these searches, the felt object was in fact contraband. 86% of the time it was not.
• 6% of all stops resulted in an arrest, and 6% resulted in a summons. The remaining 88% of the 4.4 million stops resulted in no further law enforcement action.
• In 52% of the 4.4 million stops, the person stopped was black, in 31% the person was Hispanic, and in 10% the person was white.
• In 2010, New York City’s resident population was roughly 23% black, 29% Hispanic, and 33% white.
• In 23% of the stops of blacks, and 24% of the stops of Hispanics, the officer recorded using force. The number for whites was 17%.
• Weapons were seized in 1.0% of the stops of blacks, 1.1% of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4% of the stops of whites.
• Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8% of the stops of blacks, 1.7% of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3% of the stops of whites.
• Between 2004 and 2009, the percentage of stops where the officer failed to state a specific suspected crime rose from 1% to 36%.



http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=317

Also what the Judge specifically found:
Quote

I find that nine of the stops and frisks were unconstitutional — that is, they were not based on reasonable suspicion. I also find that while five other stops were constitutional, the frisks following those stops were unconstitutional. Finally, I find that plaintiffs have failed to prove an unconstitutional stop (or frisk) in five of the nineteen stops. The individual stop testimony corroborated much of the evidence about the NYPD’s policies and practices with respect to carrying out and monitoring stops and frisks.



Here's something else regarding the policies:
Quote

Before 2010, the NYPD had no written policy prohibiting quotas for stops, arrests, or other enforcement activities. There is abundant evidence during this period of supervisors directing officers to meet numerical enforcement goals, as well as threatening the officers with negative consequences if they did not achieve those goals. In particular, three NYPD officers from three precincts made secret recordings revealing institutional pressure to
increase enforcement numbers:



So it wasn't about making legal stops. It was about making stops and SCREW the justification.

Quote

Mr Floyd himself of Floyd v. City of NY, was stopped after police observed him trying numerous keys and jostling a door in a area where a series of violent break ins were reported. The judge felt the pat down was legal but the police should not have asked him to empty his pockets. Does that really sound anything like you and others are implying here?



This was before a 2010 law that prohibited retaliation for failing to meet quotas. After the quotas were banned, the NYPD instituted "performance goals." Basically - QUOTAS.

The Court concluded:
Quote

The foregoing evidence shows that officers are routinely subjected to significant pressure to increase their stop numbers, without corresponding pressure to ensure that stops are constitutionally justified. Together with evidence described in the next section, this is a predictable formula for producing unjustified stops.



So 19 out of 4.4 million stop and frisks were reviewed. Of those, 14 were found to be Unconstitutional in the stop or frisk - a 73.6% clip. So projecting out, that 3.24 million unconstitutional stops. That is far from chump change.

So when you wrote, "The police stop people according to the NY Criminal Procedure Law when, 'reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal law'" the statement is totally inaccurate. The police stop people because they've been told to stop everyone and come up with a reason later.

Read the ruling. It's the procedures and policies that were the issue. Following policies? Yep. Unconstitutional ones.

Quote

as i said in my first sentence, what you are describing is not what is happening. if you want to complain at least be honest about it.



Actually, it's exactly what's happening


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DanG    1

DanG
Quote

Many people are ignorant or lying. The court didn't say it and the facts don't support it.



Read lawrocket's post above for a concise summary. The court did, unequivocally, say that there were systematic civil right violations.

- Dan G

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

weekender    0

weekender
you wrote alot and i wont argue against any of it. alot of it i dont fully understand to be honest. i a man enough to admit i am not a legal expert.

i dont believe you disproved my theory that there was more to this case than just what part of town you lived it. as claimed by others here.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

livendive    8

livendive
weekender

you wrote alot and i wont argue against any of it. alot of it i dont fully understand to be honest. i a man enough to admit i am not a legal expert.

i dont believe you disproved my theory that there was more to this case than just what part of town you lived it. as claimed by others here.



While I can see how what I wrote was poorly stated and could easily be read that way, my actual beef is with the concept of detaining and searching without warrant or probable cause in violation of the 4th amendment. Lawrocket's quote of the judge's ruling states this was the case in 14 of the 19 cases before her.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bignugget    0

Bignugget
DanG

Quote

Many people are ignorant or lying. The court didn't say it and the facts don't support it.



Read lawrocket's post above for a concise summary. The court did, unequivocally, say that there were systematic civil right violations.



You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
[Reply]i dont believe you disproved my theory that there was more to this case than just what part of town you lived it.



There was a lot more to it. Namely, stopping and frisking everybody without reasonable articulable suspicion. Of guidance from superiors to stop everyone and come up with reasons later.

Fundamentally, the NYPD has for most of the last decade engaged in a show-of-force policy of arbitrary and capricious harassment. Better not fumble with keys - that's a stop and frisk. If you are on a sidewalk and look at a cop, that's suspicious and you'll be stopped. Just like if you avoid eye contact with a cop. If you are black or hispanic, that's reasonable suspicion right there.

It's a shame that race is being discussed at all. But it is.

Dave's point wasa about flagrant violation of the 4th Amendment. And the zealous advocacy of continuing to do it in the name of "safety." The Constitution was designed to PREVENT this. You don't stop or search a person unless you have a damned good reason.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
0
Go To Topic Listing