BLOOMBERG

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Smoke

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2016
1,685
621
113
#41
Allow me to be clear as sometimes I'm not so much. :p
I don't know to whom you are referring when you speak of "the other guy". Personally, I have no issue with S&F. I've been stopped and right after someone in front of me was too. We were both very different profiles and yet I understood why it was being done. I have nothing to hide and understand why an officer would stop me, or feel the need, and ask questions. To note, not everyone who is stopped is patted down. There is dialog first. Police know how to read people. If someone looks suspicious, or seem frightened, that's to be expected, however, that's why the questions police ask change depending on the manner of fear displayed. Fear of being caught? Fear of being thought a bad guy? They know. I wasn't frisked, I was asked two questions, I volunteered my ID and I was free to continue on.

As an aside, an hour later when I journeyed back in that same direction to return to our hotel, about a block from where I was questioned there were police units, lights flashing, as they attempted to put three young men into different squad cars. Why? Asking the officer I'd encountered who remained on the scene after the units departed, it turned out two of the young men were strapped, and their third companion had a bowie knife in his cowboy boots. He thought his wide leg jeans would cover the boots and make them less suspicious. He was wrong. NYC is one of the most surveilled (CC's) cities in America.
The knife guy had a warrant out of a different state and for violent crime. One of the other young men was on parole, so it was illegal to carry and it is illegal to do so in NYC anyway. And the third man who was strapped tried to fight the single cop who had initially tried to stop them and after giving him a lot of vulgar lip.
Now, the question there is, why were three 20 something guys,one one parole, one with a violent offender warrant out of a different state, strapped and walking in NYC on a summer day? And why would a 20 something year old third guy need a 12 inch Bowie knife in NYC?
Would any reasonable person want to find out the hard way? Or would they instead thank God two 9's with extended clips and a Bowie knife were found before those weapons found a target?
For those not familiar with knives, this is a Bowie knife:
The blade can be anywhere from five to twelve inches in length. Depending on the "model" Bowie one wants.


When they're walking in NYC it is. Precisely. However, how does one discern that illegal gun is there if they don't act on seeing a bulge on their hip as they walk? Guns tend to have a very distinct shape when concealed without a holster and under long shirts or deep pockets. When someone walks, the bulge on their thigh, in the case of pocket concealed, is apparent even under a long shirt. Lets contain this discussion to the domain of Bloomberg. NYC.
And in NYC holster or no, it is illegal. If someone out of state has a CC permit for their home state that doesn't transfer to NYC automatically. They stop all races of people in S&F. And in NYC due to the Sullivan act/law, probable cause occurs if anyone is carrying a gun in the city. And as I mentioned, police can scan car registrations now without ever getting out of their patrol car. They can roll behind or beside someone and run a scan. If that cars registered owner has warrants, is on parole, or is acting suspicious seeing police near them, that's probable cause.

Can I tell you something? S&F predates Bloomberg. Bloomberg was all for it as a Mayor of NYC. He's now apologizing so as to gain the black vote, which tells us he's profiling S&F markers even now. And another thing, S&F as of 2019 was still happening. No need to think it stopped this year.
I want to be clear as well. I am for police officers stopping and frisking criminals (people who were caught committing a crime) or people an officer finds reasonably suspicious of committing a crime. This isn't the case with NYC... They were told to specifically stop and frisk Black people in particular neighborhoods. This was recorded and turned over to NYPD investigators. This wasn't someone with a ski mask and an ak47 strapped around their chest walking into a bank... These were people stopped and frisked for being Black in a bad area. That isn't a crime nor is that justifiable reason one is going to commit a crime. Can you at least agree with this?
 
Feb 1, 2020
725
225
43
35
#42
1.) If there was "probable cause", why was there a 70-80% no conviction rate of the people whose civil rights were violated and stopped/frisked? Surely if there was legitimate probable cause, the number would be really low as opposed to what 70-80% of the people stopped being let go because the officers didn't find anything.

Are you aware of Adrian Schoolcraft? He was a police officer who recorded orders from NYPD to stop Black people in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. That was part of the protocol that officers used to stop citizens. You call the citizens... "criminals", when in reality you have no idea if they are or aren't criminals. He released the recordings to the NYPD investigators and there were actions taken because of this. This is why they ruled NYC's stop and frisk was unconstitutional!

Once again... PLEASE do your research before commenting on something you really know little about.

2.) You'll probably think this is just a coincidence, but in police departments where they have to write an extensive explanation for why they stop and question someone, they have exponentially fewer stops than departments that aren't required to write extensive explanations? Why do you think that is?

3.) You're saying "The crime reduced, so then that proves stop and frisk is the reason for it." You are doing absolutely nothing to prove that correlation proves causation.... yet, I don't think you even realize it. You can say it over and over again, it doesn't make it true.

You can't say "if you search criminals"... How do you know who is and isn't a criminal? They were racially stopped... Why were the dominant majority of the people they stopped NOT CRIMINALS? You keep saying "stopping criminals works..." No kidding... if someone commits a crime, then stopping them is a good thing... we both agree... But stopping and frisking a random citizen for being Black in a particular neighbor doesn't automatically make them a criminal... so why are you calling them a criminal if they haven't even committed a crime? Please answer this question as it's not a rhetorical question...
Well since it just tedious to try to explain and debate further the solid constitutional and practical application of the Stop and Frisk policy, and neither will budge, to your red text to be your sticking point

Frankly it is not unconstitutional to search a black man or a white man in certain areas. They are not calling them criminals even technically, they're stopping and frisking them to see if they are criminals in a criminal areas doing criminal things because they look like criminals, black thugs, white trash, and oh so many foreigners! States have rights to adopt or discard such tools constitutionally.

Arguing on a political spectrum therefore on the case of their supposed racial bias, keep in mind New York, let alone the massive NYC, are of course frankly famous for being very left-wing and metropolitan and full of foreigners from every dark corner of this fallen world too I would add. The racial argument is absurd but yet to a degree true insofar race exists and so certain races feel a certain a way about their own race and others, but their feelings ain't my law or my yoke to bear, they're their own. And that cuts many ways, black thug can't complain when just as equally white trash be getting it too, and frankly class and behavior, they're very similar! Politically and legally and constitutionally America's police will stop and frisk you if you're white or black or whatever, especially in the specific case of New York City and far more liberal and metropolitan world famous city.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,230
113
www.christiancourier.com
#43
NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk Data
Data records from the NYPD Stop, Question, and Frisk database are available for download from the links provided below. Data is made available in CSV format. Data for the years 2003 through 2014 are provided in separate zip archives.

  • 2019 Excel file and earlier years are linked at site.
  • *Note* "POM" or "POF" in these reports = Police Officer Male , Police Officer Female

Readers here should be aware there are numerous states with, "Stop and Identify" laws in place.New York is one. There must be reasonable cause for the stop and ID. However, if the person is being detained by police they are under no obligation to comply and show ID.
The fourth amendment, it must be said at this point, is not absolute.

The law also states that the police officer must also identify themselves. If you refuse to provide your ID you can be arrested for failure to comply with a police officers order.
140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for weapons.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,737
6,903
113
#44
Here's a Report from the NYC BAR: (worth reading)

REPORT ON THE NYPD‘S STOP-AND-FRISK POLICY INTRODUCTION Bloom

(excerpt)

NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION REPORT ON THE NYPD‘S STOP-AND-FRISK POLICY INTRODUCTION

The New York Police Department‘s (NYPD) ―stop, question and frisk‖ policy has been a major, highly controversial feature of policing under the Administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The exponential growth in the use of this tactic during the first decade of Bloomberg‘s mayoralty has resulted in nearly five million stops, a stark increase from its prior use. The number of reported stops grew from 97,296 in 2002 to 685,724 in 2011, before dropping to 533,042 in 2012. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly laud the stop-andfrisk policy as a significant component of the City‘s successful effort to reduce violent crime, a means of keeping guns off the street and improving the quality of life in the neighborhoods most affected by crime. Indeed, through a variety of strategies, the crime rate in the City has been reduced substantially over the past 20 years. Indeed, the police must be able to stop and frisk individuals as a crime-fighting strategy, within the limits set by law.

My personal opinion is that this practice is not in accordance with the 4th Amendment or the 5th Amendment even IF it has a direct effect on reducing crime.
 

Smoke

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2016
1,685
621
113
#45

My personal opinion is that this practice is not in accordance with the 4th Amendment or the 5th Amendment even IF it has a direct effect on reducing crime.
Precisely! However, there are people who would allow the government to revoke our civil liberties because "it works."

With that "logic", we may as well make everything legal... it would reduce crime by 100%. :rolleyes: