or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 89

post #1321 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

They don't call it "stop" and "frisk" for nothing. They're two distinct things. The cop can "stop" someone to investigate if he has reasonable suspicion they've committed or are about to commit a crime. The "frisk" is to look for weapons for the cop's safety.


Again
photo uf250back_zps77196b78.jpg

post #1322 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post


Again
photo uf250back_zps77196b78.jpg

Are you admitting you were wrong, or did you not read the thing you keep posting?
Edited by Ataturk - 12/25/14 at 9:16pm
post #1323 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

"Unauthorized" is completely distinct from "did not produce results." The unauthorized stops were ones that had no legal justifications even under the extremely generous framework NYC allowed. A stop for "furtive movement" or "high crime area" counts as justified, even if it the person stopped ends up having done literally nothing wrong. 10% of the people stopped were "completely innocent" (I assume this means they were violating no laws whatsoever), and only 6% were doing anything serious enough to warrant arrest. Those are not good returns.

10% (assuming for the sake of argument that this is the number; I have no idea where it comes from) is not bad when the relevant standard for an investigative stop is "articulable suspicion."
Quote:
I have no issue with police frisking people as part of ensuring police safety during normal police work. That's obviously necessary for their safety. I do really question the sanity of telling police to go out and hassle people when they're not doing anything wrong beyond "looking suspicious" completely within the discretion of the police.

It's not completely within the discretion of the police. If the stop leads to anything the legality of the stop will be challenged in court. That's a pretty good check on abuses.
Quote:
It sets up obvious conditions for bias to develop, but additionally just creates an enormous number of additional negative interactions with police. All those innocent people didn't need to be "actively policed" and I'm going to guess they don't particularly appreciate the experiences.

I'm not sure how you go from "couldn't be proven guilty" to innocent. Also, the theory behind active policing is preventing crimes from happening in the first place. What's wrong with that? NYC is often held as a model for its (relatively) lot crime rates.

Also, if I can play devil's advocate for a moment, this idea of "additional negative interactions" is ridiculous. By their early 20s something like half of all black men have been arrested, and about a third or so in their 20s are either in prison or on some form of corrective supervision any given time. It's often claimed (truthfully) that there are more black men in the corrections system at any given time today than were enslaved at the height of slavery. Blacks commit something like half of all murders and a grossly disproportionate number of other serious violent crimes. Any serious effort to curb violent crime is necessarily going to impact them more. That's reality.
Quote:
You are lacking any actual support for your argument. Surely you can be bothered to produce some actual evidence that might support this claim that age demographics offset the very significant racial correlations.

What do you want a citation for, exactly? That there are fewer young white people in cities than older ones? All you have to do is visit a public high school... Or, if you insist:



http://pad.human.cornell.edu/census2010/reports/2010%20race%20age%20sex%20New%20York.pdf
post #1324 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Are you admitting you were wrong, or did you not read the thing you keep posting?

You stated that the only reason for frisking is for officer "is to look for weapons for the cop's safety" yet that is only 1 of 9 separate reasons listed. So while your assertion isn't an outright lie it clearly a distortion of the reasons for frisks.
post #1325 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

You stated that the only reason for frisking is for officer "is to look for weapons for the cop's safety" yet that is only 1 of 9 separate reasons listed. So while your assertion isn't an outright lie it clearly a distortion of the reasons for frisks.

Hah! Which one?

Bulge -- Possibly concealing weapon?

Verbal threats of violence?

Knowledge of suspect's past violence?

Other reasonable suspicion of weapons (specify)?

Etc.

Every single one of them is safety-related.
post #1326 of 6071
Inappropriate attire? WTF, did someone from the CBD thread write that?
post #1327 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

What do you want a citation for, exactly? That there are fewer young white people in cities than older ones? All you have to do is visit a public high school... Or, if you insist:
You're trying to refute a statistical argument, but not providing any numbers that would make your point.

They did the analysis against age. That includes the disproportionate number of young minorities. That correlation was weaker than the correlation against race. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. If you'd like to present some actual evidence, let's see it.

Alternative phrasing: minorities (of all ages) who had done nothing wrong were Stop and Frisked at double the rate of whites. How does "there are more young minorities" counter this?
post #1328 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You're trying to refute a statistical argument, but not providing any numbers that would make your point.

They did the analysis against age. That includes the disproportionate number of young minorities. That correlation was weaker than the correlation against race. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. If you'd like to present some actual evidence, let's see it.

Alternative phrasing: minorities (of all ages) who had done nothing wrong were Stop and Frisked at double the rate of whites. How does "there are more young minorities" counter this?

You are conflating the responses to the two separate statistics you are presenting. And I'm not sure why I need statistics of my own to counter numbers that were derived from a flawed methodology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Inappropriate attire? WTF, did someone from the CBD thread write that?

Stuff like wearing a coat on a hot day or oversized clothes that could be used to conceal a weapon. Or, a real life example, the guy who walks in to a bank wearing a wig, sunglasses, and three or four layers of jackets.
post #1329 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Stuff like wearing a coat on a hot day or oversized clothes that could be used to conceal a weapon. Or, a real life example, the guy who walks in to a bank wearing a wig, sunglasses, and three or four layers of jackets.

Oversized clothes was the "urban" style for years. That's not making the case this is race neutral any stronger.

As to the bank example that is a stretch as the cop would have to be in the bank when the guy walked in and I never see cops in banks.

I'm just going to come out and say I think "stop and frisk" violates are right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. My opinion might not align with what's legal but it's what I believe.
post #1330 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Oversized clothes was the "urban" style for years. That's not making the case this is race neutral any stronger.

It's completely race neutral since, last I checked, people are born naked. It might be an example of what you'd call a "disparate impact."

But it's very rational, considering that the style originated as a way to hide guns.
Quote:
I'm just going to come out and say I think "stop and frisk" violates are right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. My opinion might not align with what's legal but it's what I believe.

The legality of searches and seizures is decided on a case-by-case basis.
post #1331 of 6071
Washington Post article serves as a pretty good summary of my thoughts on this.

Police need new rules of engagement to reduce use of violence
post #1332 of 6071
Talk about a nonstarter. Eric Garner was out on bail at the time for several other crimes. As I understand it he'd already violated the bail twice. His was as good a case as any for a misdemeanor arrest.

And what sense does it make for the police, instead of arresting someone forcibly, to go get a warrant and then come back and... arrest the person forcibly?
post #1333 of 6071
post #1334 of 6071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Talk about a nonstarter. Eric Garner was out on bail at the time for several other crimes. As I understand it he'd already violated the bail twice. His was as good a case as any for a misdemeanor arrest.

Step back from these two cases for a second. There's a running theme in these arguments that people "should just comply with the police and you won't get your ass kicked." Why do we accept that premise, rather than question why the police have such broad authority to use force? They don't need that authority to do their jobs, there's no evidence that it actually makes anyone safer, and it occasionally gets escalated to much more serious violence and even death.

Quote:
And what sense does it make for the police, instead of arresting someone forcibly, to go get a warrant and then come back and... arrest the person forcibly?

Adding some time, distance, and legal separation from the police on the street making the decision in non-exigent circumstances. Maybe Garner deserved to be arrested, but he didn't need to be arrested right that second. Many other people involved in violent interactions with police haven't done anything other than refuse to comply with police (26% of Stop and Frisk interactions involved violence and ~90% of those did not lead to even an arrest). If someone is not a danger to the community, back off, make a calm and rational decision about whether force needs to be used to arrest them, and go from there.

If they're actually putting anyone in danger (including the police), by all means use force.
post #1335 of 6071
tag_reuters.com2014_binary_LYNXMPEABQ06K-FILEDIMAGE-800x430.gif

1. Demand an end to all anti-police brutality protests until after the funeral.
2. Protest at the funeral itself.
3. ???
4. PROFIT

Disgusting behavior by the NYPD and all other agencies there today. If they don't respect DeBlasio, fine, but respect the office and don't politicize a funeral.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?