'Stop and Frisk' = Unconstitutional

Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A judge ruled on Monday the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" crime-fighting tactic unconstitutional, dealing a stinging rebuke to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had argued the practice drove down the city's crime rate.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin called it "indirect racial profiling" because it targeted racially defined groups, resulting in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics while the city highest officials "turned a blind eye," she said.

"No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," Scheindlin wrote in her opinion
Click to expand...

NYPD's 'stop-and-frisk' practice is unconstitutional, judge rules
 
mamatutu

mamatutu

mama to two
FreedomFan said:
I read another article which said it wasn't going to be stopped, only reworked.
Click to expand...

Reworked as in written in such a way that no one understands it, but will pass anyway sort of thing. I am sure Mr. Bloomberg won't go down without a fight; after all, he only has about 5 more months in office. I am sure he will come up with quite a few more 'doozies' before he is gone.
 
Railroad

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
If cultural influences drive crime, then the practice of applying a stop-and-frisk tactic becomes a function of neighborhood. Certain demographics apply which appear to have a high population of certain races, depending on the neighborhood. Hence the appearance of "racial profiling." The practice of stop-and-frisk certainly does seem extreme and probably is unconstitutional, though.

I recently had the opportunity to have some frank and lengthy conversations with people who had grown up and lived in certain inner-city neighborhoods, and had spent time in the prisons through which some of the products of those neighborhoods are cycled as a result of their crimes. They understand the theories driving something extreme like stop-and-frisk; they aren't screeching about their rights, but people who don't even know what it's like to live there, are.

My point, I guess, is that there's a lot more noise about this than is perhaps warranted, although the Constitution and Bill of Rights are sacred and should be upheld AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. (Bear in mind that those documents were written when members of our society had certain moral values below which most people didn't sink).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top