BLOOMBERG

[Whispered]

1/21/20 ‘I Was Wrong,’ Bloomberg Says. But This Policy Still Haunts Him.
After defending the stop-and-frisk policing tactic, the former mayor apologized. But black voters in the Democratic presidential race may not forgive him.

Bloomberg has a lot of apologizing to do between now and November. What's next?
What is Stop and frisk? Overview

 

[Whispered]

Bloomberg is not really an enigma. He is just like Soros, Steyer, Gates, Zuckerberg, and other unprincipled billionaires. They all believe that they should use their wealth to destroy America -- which gave them their wealth -- and what it stands for. They want to see the world enslaved one way or another.

So they are all essentially destroyers (just like Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, etc), working for the greatest Destroyer* of all -- Satan. He is the puppet master behind all these billionaires, who like the Rothschilds, and a small cabal of extremely wealthy Jews, are on earth to destroy societies, send souls to Hell, and bring in the New World Order. With the Antichrist in control, who is also controlled by Satan.

*Note: Apollyon (Greek) or Abaddon (Hebrew) means Destroyer.

Curious about the near last part of your posting. "...a small cabal of extremely wealthy Jews, are on earth to destroy societies,... "
Are you part of the CIM? "Christian Identity Movement" .

 

[Nehemiah6]

Are you part of the CIM? "Christian Identity Movement" .

No. I am not. But facts are facts.

In 1913, Jacob Schiff funded the Russian Revolutionaries with $20m USD to overthrow the Czar of Russia. (Quoted from The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists: Antony C. Sutton: 9781905570355: Amazon.com: Books)

Seventeen years before that [the assassination of Lincoln], in 1848, Marx and Engels had published their Communist Manifesto. Marx's grandmother was a first cousin of Nathan Mayer Rothschild's wife. Nathan's brother, James, was also a close friend of Marx's equally close friend, the poet Heinrich Heine. In 1882 the Manifesto arrived in Russia. A 35-year generation later, the Manifesto inspired the 1917 Russian Revolution that took down the Czar.

https://www.quora.com/topic/The-Rothschilds-family

 

[Ghoti2]

Unfortunately Christians aren't an isolated group when it comes to them believing just exactly what they are told over and over. Bloomberg stands a VERY good chance of becoming president simply by indoctrination of the ignorant masses of American voters.

 

[Billyd]

Don't under sell the effect of advertisements. All Bloomberg has to do is continue to spend (and he can easily do it) 100 million dollars a month on advertising and he'll end up being our next president. The number of people suffering with TDS is already approaching 40% of the electorate. If he can get the Democratic nomination, (all he has to do is keep Bernie from wining it before the convention) they will come out of the woodwork to vote for him.

 

[Billyd]

Yea I guess if you don't support stop and frisk, which has provably drastically reduced the rate of murder, that you must admit that black lives just don't really matter to you.

Stop and frisk violates everyone's right to unlawful search.

 

[Smoke]

The Stop and Frisk policy provably cut crime, particularly the murder rate which is of course an egregious crime, but also is useful in catching and deterring criminals like drug dealers and lowkey gangbangers and people that own illegal guns and foreigners.

You'll find the sort of people that were stopped and frisked are not exactly ideal citizens, if they were even citizens at all. Civil rights are for the civilized and I would contend the vast majority of those stopped and frisked are not civilized they just want a free pass to commit high crimes with impunity. Understand that stop and frisk was not done willy nilly to every single person. This is no NWO police state conspiracy theory, but the policy was done intelligently in specifically targeted areas and targeting largely the criminal people to great effect. In more plain talk, they stop and frisked the ghettoes and slums and the scum that crawl around in them and helped clean up those hellholes with tangible results.

The citizen deserves to not be murdered or assaulted or poisoned by a combination of a bunch of savages and foreign interlopers. This is where Bloomberg was right, though he was weak and tries to downplay it on public TV to pander to the degenerate party, that the citizen's foremost God ordained right is a right to live and in relative peace.

1.) Correlation does not prove causation.
2.) Do you deny NYC's implementation of stop and frisk was unconstitutional? Or do you admit it was unconstitutional, but the hell with our civil liberties because you believe it "reduced murder rates"?
3.) If we removed cars from the USA, would we reduce the amount of casualties? Do people have the right to live as you say?

Maybe you are okay with handing over some civil liberties for a false sense of security... but I'm not. I believe in preserving the constitution... not scratching parts out so I can pretend I'm safer.

When you give over your rights, the government will only try to take more away from you over time.

 

[Smoke]

Yes, the Constitutional rights of thugs must be upheld. While stop and mug, rape, beat the crap out of, by thugs that prowled NYC wasn't Constitutional but the gang and criminal element didn't give a flying flip about citizens rights. They wanted everything the working class had. In their pockets, in their purse, around their neck, on their hand. And would even go so far as to cut off a finger if the ring didn't slide off easily.

Yes, civil rights of thugs are what's priority. Uh huh.

So you're saying they knew who was a "thug" prior to stopping and frisking them? How do you define what a thug is? Is wearing baggy clothes, sagging jeans, etc... an illegal act?

If someone is caught cutting a finger off of a person to steal their ring, then by all means "stop and frisk" them... My point is, they don't know who is a criminal or isn't a criminal... it's just a crapshoot.

I believe in the right to travel, free from being molested by the authorities unless a crime has been committed or a reasonable suspicion that someone is about to commit a crime. Being a minority, wearing baggy and sagging jeans, having a gold chain around your neck, and walking in a low SES area is not considered "reasonable suspicion".

If we don't get rid of cars when there have been people who used them to run people over, are we now going to rant as you did? "Yes, the constitutional rights of murders who run people over with cars must be upheld. No! Let's ban cars because some people misuse them!" That's your line of thinking which is anti-constitutional...

 

[JeremiahsCup]

1.) Correlation does not prove causation.
2.) Do you deny NYC's implementation of stop and frisk was unconstitutional? Or do you admit it was unconstitutional, but the hell with our civil liberties because you believe it "reduced murder rates"?
3.) If we removed cars from the USA, would we reduce the amount of casualties? Do people have the right to live as you say?

Maybe you are okay with handing over some civil liberties for a false sense of security... but I'm not. I believe in preserving the constitution... not scratching parts out so I can pretend I'm safer.

When you give over your rights, the government will only try to take more away from you over time.

1. Results, results, RESULTS! Cause and effect, stopping and frisking hoodlums in crime ridden areas provably reduces crime.

2. NYC's implementation of a targeted and intelligent stop and frisk policy is not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for the states and the localities to make their own criminal laws. Furthermore the low burden of probable cause is fully constitutional and the Stop and Frisk policy in NYC, and other big cities, I believe fits in the context of probable cause. Furthermore the results speak for themselves. It's not your kindly old ladies being stopped and frisked, let's not kid ourselves, it's hardened hooligans who kill eachother for 20 dollars or less.

3. If you really want to play this fool's argument, cars are not a constitutional right. Furthermore your car can be searched for probable cause, and most people that have their cars searched are searched under the auspice of probable cause, to great effect I would add. It's the same principle, if you're a hoodrat driving in beater pulling out of a known crime ridden area the cops can certainly search your car and it will probably reduce crime when they catch you with drugs or weapons on you.

 

[Smoke]

1. Results, results, RESULTS! Cause and effect, stopping and frisking hoodlums in crime ridden areas provably reduces crime.

2. NYC's implementation of a targeted and intelligent stop and frisk policy is not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for the states and the localities to make their own criminal laws. Furthermore the low burden of probable cause is fully constitutional and the Stop and Frisk policy in NYC, and other big cities, I believe fits in the context of probable cause. Furthermore the results speak for themselves. It's not your kindly old ladies being stopped and frisked, let's not kid ourselves, it's hardened hooligans who kill eachother for 20 dollars or less.

3. If you really want to play this fool's argument, cars are not a constitutional right. Furthermore your car can be searched for probable cause, and most people that have their cars searched are searched under the auspice of probable cause, to great effect I would add. It's the same principle, if you're a hoodrat driving in beater pulling out of a known crime ridden area the cops can certainly search your car and it will probably reduce crime when they catch you with drugs or weapons on you.

1.) Once again... correlation does not prove causation. How do we know the crime rate didn't dropped simply because there was more policing in crime ridden areas? With or without stop and frisk, more policemen in an area will surely negate criminals... no? How does violating someone's civil rights reduce crime but having more police officers patroling high crime areas is largely ineffective?

2.) You're wrong... it was proven to be unconstitutional. You can say the act of stopping and frisking isn't illegal, which is technically correct, but the way NYC implemented it was 100% unconstitutional. In fact, the judge who RULED NYC's stop and frisk unconstitutional even said that the act of "stop and frisk" isn't unconstitutional, just the way they were implementing it was. They were racially profiling people.

You can't stop someone just for "looking like a thug". That isn't probable cause. I don't care if it's a crime ridden area or not... if they have not committed a crime and they aren't doing anything to cause reasonable suspicion that a crime is going to be committed, a police officer cannot stop and frisk them.

3.) Why is this a "fool's argument"? You are for handing over civil liberties because you think it gives you security... So from your response, it sounds like you're for outlawing all cars in the US as it will reduce casualties. You are entitled to your beliefs even if they are extreme.

 

[Smoke]

i'm kinda suspicious that his intent is nothing more than to split the DNC vote. no way is he going to be their nominee, but he's spending his own billions, like Perot did, and i doubt he's going to stop after the primaries.

I didn't even think about that honestly. It would be a smart move on his part if his intent is to get Trump reelected. Pretend they are enemies, name call each other, when in reality they have quite a bit in common (billionaires, NDAs with multiple women, diarrhea of the mouth, etc...).

I do have to admit though, it was hilarious watching all the other Democratic nominees blast him at the debate the other day. We shouldn't watch these things with the hopes of being so thoroughly entertained like a WWE match, but nevertheless, I was thoroughly entertain every time they went after him. lol

 

[JeremiahsCup]

1.) Once again... correlation does not prove causation. How do we know the crime rate didn't dropped simply because there was more policing in crime ridden areas? With or without stop and frisk, more policemen in an area will surely negate criminals... no? How does violating someone's civil rights reduce crime but having more police officers patroling high crime areas is largely ineffective?

2.) You're wrong... it was proven to be unconstitutional. You can say the act of stopping and frisking isn't illegal, which is technically correct, but the way NYC implemented it was 100% unconstitutional. In fact, the judge who RULED NYC's stop and frisk unconstitutional even said that the act of "stop and frisk" isn't unconstitutional, just the way they were implementing it was. They were racially profiling people.

You can't stop someone just for "looking like a thug". That isn't probable cause. I don't care if it's a crime ridden area or not... if they have not committed a crime and they aren't doing anything to cause reasonable suspicion that a crime is going to be committed, a police officer cannot stop and frisk them.

3.) Why is this a "fool's argument"? You are for handing over civil liberties because you think it gives you security... So from your response, it sounds like you're for outlawing all cars in the US as it will reduce casualties. You are entitled to your beliefs even if they are extreme.

1. Because they caught a lot of criminals and the crime rate significantly dropped. It didn't drop by a little bit, it dropped by a lot so you cannot say it's a fluke of chance. No one's civil rights were violated, that is a false argument to say that they were. The state and city have powers granted by the constitution to enforce basic laws.

2. Incorrect, stop and frisk was a great policy and was not unconstitutional. Now the liberal degenerates like Obama might have made that claim that is was racial to make it end so he can sabotage America some more, but that does not make him right. Have you ever considered perhaps certain demographics of people are pretty prone to violence and crime? Instead of you know arguing to give them a pass and tacitly approving of their criminality you'd be better off telling them to clean their race up and stop committing crimes. Being in a crime ridden area and looking a thug is definitely probable cause. The burden for probable cause is the lowest burden, you don't have to like it, but it's constitutional and legal and I'd add EFFECTIVE!

3. It's the fool's argument because it's false equivocation. But as I wrote for you, you can equivocate more fairly searching a car for probable cause to searching a person for probable cause. I am totally fine with the police pulling over thugs driving out of known crime areas for probable cause and searching them and more likely than not pulling them and their weapons and drugs off of my streets.

 

[Whispered]

So you're saying they knew who was a "thug" prior to stopping and frisking them? How do you define what a thug is? Is wearing baggy clothes, sagging jeans, etc... an illegal act?

If someone is caught cutting a finger off of a person to steal their ring, then by all means "stop and frisk" them... My point is, they don't know who is a criminal or isn't a criminal... it's just a crapshoot.

I believe in the right to travel, free from being molested by the authorities unless a crime has been committed or a reasonable suspicion that someone is about to commit a crime. Being a minority, wearing baggy and sagging jeans, having a gold chain around your neck, and walking in a low SES area is not considered "reasonable suspicion".

If we don't get rid of cars when there have been people who used them to run people over, are we now going to rant as you did? "Yes, the constitutional rights of murders who run people over with cars must be upheld. No! Let's ban cars because some people misuse them!" That's your line of thinking which is anti-constitutional...

Do you oppose the Sullivan law? How about the New York Safe Act?
"Cars" is a red herring.
How stop-and-frisk saved New York

The point of the matter is Stop and Frisk works.
And today, police are able to run scans on vehicles without ever pulling them over. Someone who has a record for violence, criminal behavior, driving through NYC and on parole should not be surprised if they're stopped and questioned. Under parole terms they can't refuse.

What constitutes a thug? Ask any New Yorker and they'll tell you. It isn't a race thing as you believe, it is a criminal thing.
If you know anyone that has worked in Victim Services you will likely be told anything that stops a thug from pistol whipping a woman for her purse that had a total of $20.00 in it is a good thing.
In this country there are civil rights and Constitutional rights, yes. However, when the criminals are accorded more rights than the public we're in big trouble. People have a right to walk the streets of NYC unmolested. The demographic of Manhattan is money. A certain profile lives and works there. And a certain profile knows it and hunts there. Good law abiding people have a right to walk the streets of NYC unmolested by hunters.
And if someone is walking with what looks like a 9mm stowed in the pocket of their jeans, and in NYC, they can't whine about being stopped and questioned.
And the baggy pants look isn't fashion, its an indecent exposure citation! All it takes is some celebrity to start wearing pants like that and wannabe fans follow suit. Poor fools. What they don't know is that the baggy pant look isn't cool, its a B(%Yh flag worn by inmates in prison. Don't know what that means? It means the men who are girls while in prison wear their pants saggy and half showing their backside so as to send the message they bend over!
PULL YOUR PANTS UP! Don't look like a girl, or a little boy with a diaper full.
Former inmates may become confused. The choice is yours. (impersonal you and yours, just so as to offset the chance someone may infer I'm talking to them. Unless they do wear their pants that way. In which case, I am.)

 

[Smoke]

1. Because they caught a lot of criminals and the crime rate significantly dropped. It didn't drop by little bit, it dropped by a lot so you cannot say it's a fluke of chance. No one's civil rights were violated, that is false argument to say that they were. The state and city have powers granted by the constitution to enforce basic laws.

2. Incorrect, stop and frisk was a great policy and was not unconstitutional. Now the liberal degenerates like Obama might have made that claim that is was racial to make it end so he can sabotage America some more, but that does make him right. Have you ever considered perhaps certain demographics of people are pretty prone to violence and crime. Instead of you know arguing to give them a pass and tacitly approving of their criminality you'd be better off telling them clean their race up and stop committing crimes. Being in a crime ridden area and looking a thug is definitely probable cause. The burden for probable cause is the lowest burden, you don't have to like it, but it's constitutional and legal and I'd add EFFECTIVE!

3. It's the fool's argument because it's false equivocation. But as I wrote for you, you can equivocate more fairly searching car for probable cause to searching a person for probable cause. I am totally fine with the police pulling over thugs driving out of known crime areas for probable cause and searching them and more likely than not pulling them and their weapons and drugs off of my streets.

1.) No ones civil rights were violated? Then why was this ruled unconstitutional in NYC? Are you saying they ONLY stopped people who committed a crime or had a reason to suspect they were about to commit a crime? If so, you realize this has been proven false and ruled that the implementation of NYC's stop and frisk was 100% unconstitutional?

With all due respect, please read up on it before making false claims.

2.) Social economic status has a higher correlation to law abiding/law breaking citizens than does racial demographics. I say this and I'm a Libertarian White man. I don't care about the Left or the Right... I prefer looking at the facts. "Facts don't care about your feelings".

I honestly can't really believe you're saying everything in bullet number 2... Simply dressing a certain way is considered "reasonable cause of suspicion" that someone is going to commit a crime to you... That is really telling and really disturbing. We judge a person not by how he or she looks, but by their actions. Unless and until they break the law or there is LEGITIMATE reason to think they are about to break the law, we are not allowed to stop and frisk them.

3.) What is the false equivocate? Unless it was someone else, if it was then I apologize, I could have sworn you said something to the effect of stop and frisk saving people's lives and so it's a good thing. If that is the barometer in which you measure the merits of a law, even a law which was proven to be unconstitutionally implemented in NYC, then it's a fair equivocate to bring up the fact that outlawing all cars would save lives. No one could argue otherwise.

 

[JeremiahsCup]

1.) No ones civil rights were violated? Then why was this ruled unconstitutional in NYC? Are you saying they ONLY stopped people who committed a crime or had a reason to suspect they were about to commit a crime? If so, you realize this has been proven false and ruled that the implementation of NYC's stop and frisk was 100% unconstitutional?

With all due respect, please read up on it before making false claims.

2.) Social economic status has a higher correlation to law abiding/law breaking citizens than does racial demographics. I say this and I'm a Libertarian White man. I don't care about the Left or the Right... I prefer looking at the facts. "Facts don't care about your feelings".

I honestly can't really believe you're saying everything in bullet number 2... Simply dressing a certain way is considered "reasonable cause of suspicion" that someone is going to commit a crime to you... That is really telling and really disturbing. We judge a person not by how he or she looks, but by their actions. Unless and until they break the law or there is LEGITIMATE reason to think they are about to break the law, we are not allowed to stop and frisk them.

3.) What is the false equivocate? Unless it was someone else, if it was then I apologize, I could have sworn you said something to the effect of stop and frisk saving people's lives and so it's a good thing. If that is the barometer in which you measure the merits of a law, even a law which was proven to be unconstitutionally implemented in NYC, then it's a fair equivocate to bring up the fact that outlawing all cars would save lives. No one could argue otherwise.

1. Because Obama and the democrats hate America and side with America's enemies. Biden even admitted this in the most recent DNC debate to earn brownie points from the non-Christians. They stopped and frisked people that they had probable cause to search and guess what; crime, especially violent crime went down significantly.

2. The most important factor is really the area they are in, but nevertheless, yes your dress, your appearance (ie: if you're a tattooed heathen), your behavior, the smells the come off you (ie: pot), and so forth are all perfectly reasonable factors in determining probable cause. I find it more disturbing people want to uphold the hands of the infidels and criminals. I mean if this is your argument, why even have a police force? You might as well just make them become a clean up crew.

3. Yes stop and frisk saved lives and reduced crime. It's a false equivocation to say we should ban cars because we search criminals. A more fair equivocation would be to suggest to stop searching cars. The principle of the argument is the searching of criminals for probable cause. In a more fair equivocation you could still logically argue it is fair to search a car for probable cause and it will probably save lives and reduce crime just the same as searching someone's person such as the stop and frisk policy.

 

[Smoke]

Do you oppose the Sullivan law? How about the New York Safe Act?
"Cars" is a red herring.
How stop-and-frisk saved New York

The point of the matter is Stop and Frisk works.
And today, police are able to run scans on vehicles without ever pulling them over. Someone who has a record for violence, criminal behavior, driving through NYC and on parole should not be surprised if they're stopped and questioned. Under parole terms they can't refuse.

What constitutes a thug? Ask any New Yorker and they'll tell you. It isn't a race thing as you believe, it is a criminal thing.
If you know anyone that has worked in Victim Services you will likely be told anything that stops a thug from pistol whipping a woman for her purse that had a total of $20.00 in it is a good thing.
In this country there are civil rights and Constitutional rights, yes. However, when the criminals are accorded more rights than the public we're in big trouble. People have a right to walk the streets of NYC unmolested. The demographic of Manhattan is money. A certain profile lives and works there. And a certain profile knows it and hunts there. Good law abiding people have a right to walk the streets of NYC unmolested by hunters.
And if someone is walking with what looks like a 9mm stowed in the pocket of their jeans, and in NYC, they can't whine about being stopped and questioned.
And the baggy pants look isn't fashion, its an indecent exposure citation! All it takes is some celebrity to start wearing pants like that and wannabe fans follow suit. Poor fools. What they don't know is that the baggy pant look isn't cool, its a B(%Yh flag worn by inmates in prison. Don't know what that means? It means the men who are girls while in prison wear their pants saggy and half showing their backside so as to send the message they bend over!
PULL YOUR PANTS UP! Don't look like a girl, or a little boy with a diaper full.
Former inmates may become confused. The choice is yours. (impersonal you and yours, just so as to offset the chance someone may infer I'm talking to them. Unless they do wear their pants that way. In which case, I am.)

We seem to agree that money is the real "demographic" and not race, unlike the other guy who agrees that stop and frisk is a good thing. It was a bit crazy reading some of his beliefs... I'm grateful you don't share that.

Having said that, I'm sorry... if a guy has a 9mm in a holster (I don't know NYC requirements for licensed to carry as I don't live there), that isn't a legitimate reason to think the person is about to commit a crime. If it was in his pants pocket, then he may (or may not) be violating the conceal license to carry by not appropriately concealing his gun... if so, then I think a stop and frisk is 100% justified as he is in violation of a law. In a holster, no... You cannot stop him/her as you have no idea if the person has a concealed license to carry it. I don't care if they look like a "thug" or if they are in a high crime area, until and unless someone breaks the law, police officers are not allowed to stop and frisk. This isn't MY opinion, this is the law of the land. NYC broke proper implementation of stop and frisk when they failed to have reasonable suspicion/probable cause... They racially profiled people.

Where we ultimately disagree is that because you think it was the actual violation of the person's civil liberties that police officers were able to reduce the crime and thus, it's a good idea. Obviously I happen to believe that more policing in higher crime areas had more to do with lower crime than the actual violation of civil rights... Even IF violating someone's civil rights somehow lowers crime rates, it is still ILLEGAL to do it in the way NYC implemented it.

 

[Smoke]

1. Because Obama and the democrats hate America and side with America's enemies. Biden even admitted this in the most recent DNC debate to earn brownie points from the non-Christians. They stopped and frisked people that they had probable cause to search and guess what; crime, especially violent crime went down significantly.

2. The most important factor is really the area they are in, but nevertheless, yes your dress, your appearance (ie: if you're a tattooed heathen), your behavior, the smells the come off you (ie: pot), and so forth are all perfectly reasonable factors in determining probable cause. I find it more disturbing people want to uphold the hands of the infidels and criminals. I mean if this is your argument, why even have a police force? You might as well just make them become a clean up crew.

3. Yes stop and frisk saved lives and reduced crime. It's a false equivocation to say we should ban cars because we search criminals. A more fair equivocation would be to suggest to stop searching cars. The principle of the argument is the searching of criminals for probable cause. In a more fair equivocation you could still logically argue it is fair to search a car for probable cause and it will probably save lives and reduce crime just the same as searching someone's person such as the stop and frisk policy.

1.) You clearly are unaware that NYC stopped and frisked people without probable cause. The justification for doing so was that "it works!" It working or not (that's open for debate) is irrelevant the manner in which stop and frisk was implemented in NYC. Please research this.

2.) Sorry, courts have already ruled that the way someone dresses and having tattoos is not a "reasonable suspicion" someone is going to commit a crime. You did mention "behavior" as well as someone smelling of "pot". Now, obviously if someone is threatening to beat up another person on the street, that is behavior in violation of the law, and a stop and frisk is 100% justified in this circumstance. A person taking pictures of national monuments is not behavior indicative of someone about to commit a crime however. Depending on your state, if you smell like pot, then that is reasonable suspicion you are breaking the law.

3.) More policing in high crime areas reduced crime. This is how I know you aren't understanding my point... "It's a false equivocation to say we should ban cars because we search criminals." I never said that... I said, "If you believe NYC's implementation of stop and frisk is a good thing because it saved lives, then why not ban all cars as it will surely save lives?" Your justification for stop and frisk is that "it works" and it "saved lives"... Do you disagree that if there were no one driving cars, fewer people would die from car accidents? If you agree... then it's a 100% fair equivalence.

 

[JeremiahsCup]

1.) You clearly are unaware that NYC stopped and frisked people without probable cause. The justification for doing so was that "it works!" It working or not (that's open for debate) is irrelevant the manner in which stop and frisk was implemented in NYC. Please research this.

2.) Sorry, courts have already ruled that the way someone dresses and having tattoos is not a "reasonable suspicion" someone is going to commit a crime. You did mention "behavior" as well as someone smelling of "pot". Now, obviously if someone is threatening to beat up another person on the street, that is behavior in violation of the law, and a stop and frisk is 100% justified in this circumstance. A person taking pictures of national monuments is not behavior indicative of someone about to commit a crime however. Depending on your state, if you smell like pot, then that is reasonable suspicion you are breaking the law.

3.) More policing in high crime areas reduced crime. This is how I know you aren't understanding my point... "It's a false equivocation to say we should ban cars because we search criminals." I never said that... I said, "If you believe NYC's implementation of stop and frisk is a good thing because it saved lives, then why not ban all cars as it will surely save lives?" Your justification for stop and frisk is that "it works" and it "saved lives"... Do you disagree that if there were no one driving cars, fewer people would die from car accidents? If you agree... then it's a 100% fair equivalence.

1. Wrong, the people that were stopped and frisked were done so by probable cause. The police were sent to the troubled areas and intelligently targeted the criminal people to very great effect.

2. Your appearance, your smell, your behavior, and most importantly your location are all fair game for probable cause. Even if for say pot is legal in your state, that is still probable cause just the same as if you wreak of booze, which is legal in all states. The burden of proof for probable cause is pretty low. Sure some liberal malefactors that have infested the government try to make things easier for criminals all the time by getting rid of sensible laws, but that does not make them right.

3. Wrong, stop and frisk reduced the crime. The crime rate went down drastically, this proves causation. If say the murder rate only went down by the single digit percentage you could argue it was a fluke or indirect factors. However when it drops over 50%, a massive margin, that proves directly the policy of stop and frisk was main factor and it was no fluke. My justification for stop and frisk is if you search criminals in criminal areas, that look like criminals, come from the criminal backgrounds, behave like criminals, and so forth, you will indeed save lives AND reduce crime, and to boot that is exactly what in fact happened, so it's not even a theory, it is proven.

 

[Whispered]

We seem to agree that money is the real "demographic" and not race, unlike the other guy who agrees that stop and frisk is a good thing. It was a bit crazy reading some of his beliefs... I'm grateful you don't share that.

Allow me to be clear as sometimes I'm not so much.
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.

Having said that, I'm sorry... if a guy has a 9mm in a holster (I don't know NYC requirements for licensed to carry as I don't live there), that isn't a legitimate reason to think the person is about to commit a crime.

When they're walking in NYC it is.

If it was in his pants pocket, then he may (or may not) be violating the conceal license to carry by not appropriately concealing his gun... if so, then I think a stop and frisk is 100% justified as he is in violation of a law.

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.

In a holster, no... You cannot stop him/her as you have no idea if the person has a concealed license to carry it. I don't care if they look like a "thug" or if they are in a high crime area, until and unless someone breaks the law, police officers are not allowed to stop and frisk.

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.

This isn't MY opinion, this is the law of the land. NYC broke proper implementation of stop and frisk when they failed to have reasonable suspicion/probable cause... They racially profiled people.

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.

Where we ultimately disagree is that because you think it was the actual violation of the person's civil liberties that police officers were able to reduce the crime and thus, it's a good idea. Obviously I happen to believe that more policing in higher crime areas had more to do with lower crime than the actual violation of civil rights... Even IF violating someone's civil rights somehow lowers crime rates, it is still ILLEGAL to do it in the way NYC implemented it.

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.

 

[Smoke]

1. Wrong, the people that were stopped and frisked were done so by probable cause. The police were sent to the troubled areas and intelligently targeted the criminal people to very great effect.

2. Your appearance, your smell, your behavior, and most importantly your location are all fair game for probable cause. Even if for say pot is legal in your state, that is still probable cause just the same as if you wreak of booze, which is legal in all states. The burden of proof for probable cause is pretty low. Sure some liberal malefactors that have infested the government try to make things easier for criminals all the time by getting rid of sensible laws, but that does not make them right.

3. Wrong, stop and frisk reduced the crime. The crime rate went down drastically, this proves causation. If say the murder rate only went down by the single digit percentage you could argue it was a fluke or indirect factors. However when it drops over 50%, a massive margin, that proves directly the policy of stop and frisk was main factor and it was no fluke. My justification for stop and frisk is if you search criminals in criminal areas, that look like criminals, come from the criminal backgrounds, behave like criminals, and so forth, you will indeed save lives AND reduce crime, and to boot that is exactly what in fact happened, so it's not even a theory, it is proven.

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...