N.Y. judge halts 'stop-and-frisk' tactic outside Bronx building

Well, the ACLU should like that. . .

 

I would expect that most people would like that.

Certainly we should live in a society where there is a presumption of innocence. For the police to stop folks who "look suspicious", whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) that means.

I certainly do not want police to have the ability to simply search folks when there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. That reeks of a totalitarian police state.

 

it looks like shady teens and guys like this
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/01/08/judge-halts-nypds-trespass-arrests-in-bronx/
come on there not going to frisk average people like this ny

 

Shady teens?

Sorry, but I live in a society where the police do not just stop people based on whims and search them. It's all in that Constitution thingy that folks like to shred.

 

tennis shoes are good for running, back packs are good for hiding drugs and stolen goods. all three where together walking, ages are not the same and the long hair guy looks a little old for school to have a back pack on. notice how the Sergent is touching it and focus in on it

 

Wonder what judgy girl says about agents of the government stopping and groping folks without reasonable suspicion prior to entering privately owned airplanes?

 

Excellent point!

Correct me if I am wrong, but is not everyone that goes through security at an airport subject to screening procedures? Not just those that "look shady"?

Therein lies the difference, wouldn't you say?

 

how about the red shirt far right gang colors for the bloods. http://www.washoe.k12.nv.us/district/departments/school-police/gang-unit

 

NYC is suppressing black on black homicide and Chicago is not. Who is the Left mad at? NYPD of course.

But,they sure we upset over white kids getting killed in Connecticut.

 

Here's why you can't trust cops when they stop people and search them:
[video=youtube;0N7yoBtfnJk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N7yoBtfnJk&playnext=1&list=PL8242BD03C7E2C33E&feature=results_video[/video]
Under American law, which most lawyers don't want you to know, no sherriff or bailiff - cop can put anyone to his own law. He can't accuse you of anything unless there is a damaged accuser with faithful witness.

Letting cops put people to their own law is no different than having the US military goons breaking into peoples' houses and causing vast harm, as they eagerly did in Iraq, over and over and over and over again as part of their efforts to destroy the lives of millions of Iraqi people.

 

I only read the OP...didn't click the link...and didn't see where she ruled it unconstitutional because of agents systemically singling out those who "look shady".

If it's a matter of "profiling", government can, just as it has with its TSA procedures, "get around" her ruling by having agents randomly search ANYONE prior to entering the private building...

(I'm not defending this....I'm trying to illuminate the increasingly random and arbitrary nature of constitutional interpretations)

 

I understand.

TSA agents equally applying thee law somehow equals cops being allowed to stop folks whom they deem suspicious, which is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

 

i wonder how many times they had a run in with her and she always dump the drugs before they can frisk her, looks to me like a little street justice break even, being dish out on the front line troops in a war.
come on we know your Vietnam Cong

 

You complain about constitutional infringements out of one side of your mouth, while supporting them out the other. It's a wonder why anyone takes you seriously anymore.

 

Spitballing here....and basing it only on the verbiage "without first having reasonable suspicion" (probable cause) in the first paragraph.



I suspect.... because perhaps no large "randomness of race/ethnicity" pool exists among those trying to enter the building.....as would exist at an airport..... government agents were seen as singling out only a specific race/ethnicity (never mind that only a specific race/ethnicity may reside in, or ever visit the building)...and that, as we all know is strictly verboten, and would easily spring into action the constitutionality complaints and inquiries....(while being able to continue pretending TSA's stops and searches without first having reasonable suspicion (probable cause) are perfectly constitutional)

 

What's the problem here? We have to make sure that everyone is safe from gun violence. Who would be against increased safety? Crazy right-wingers, I suppose!

 

not everyone is subjected to the rape scan/body cavity search...everyone has to go thru the magnetometer.

 

Seems like a fair ruling. A random stop and frisk without a reason is well beyond the bounds of a Terry stop. It looks like the NYPD didn't think this through and acted hastily after receiving citizen complaint. Looks like they jumped to a solution without analysing the problem.

 

What infringement?

Black kids shot dead- no biggie. White kids shot dead- Obama and the Democrats want action. There's your talking out of one side of your mouth.

 

The difference between the two is that if you refuse to be searched, you don't get on your plane and you're inconvenienced by having to find another method of transport.

The other means if you refuse to be searched, you don't get to go to into your own home.

 

I guess you never heard of the 4th amendment.

You should write a novel; you're much better at making (*)(*)(*)(*) up than you are at supporting an argument.

 

if you walk towards police frisking people and turn around, you go home. if you walk towards the TSA checkpoint and get out of line when they start rape scaning blondes, you get arrested.

 

Not this apt building; it was their home.

 

why are the police hanging out at one managment company's buildings?

 

Seems like a bad neighbourhood. My guess is the apartment owner would likely agree to these searches if asked by the police, and require the tennants to agree also before they were allowed in the building. Nothing wrong with that.