Martin Luther King Jr.

[vraiblonde]

So what you said about the NYPD, that they were stopping and frisking ANYONE they saw fit is a lie. They had reason to do so.

You're not very good at this. Want some help?

 

[tom88]

You're not very good at this. Want some help?

Lil bit....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

That is not what the NYPD did. They had a policy which was consistent with law. The court case they lost is not a loss of the entire policy but part of it's implementation.

If it is consistant with the law, why did a federal judge declare what they were doing Unconstitutional?

But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said officers were routinely stopping people outside the buildings without reasonable suspicion that they were trespassing.

“While it may be difficult to say where, precisely, to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters, such a line exists, and the N.Y.P.D. has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops outside TAP buildings in the Bronx,” Judge Scheindlin ruled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/nyregion/judge-limits-nypd-stop-and-frisk-program-in-bronx.html

You said the NYPD stops ANYONE they see fit! That is a lie. They had to have reasonable suspicion that the person was committing a crime or about to commit a crime, and that they might be armed. The officers articulated their reasonable suspicion in the reports that were used for the suit.

More of the judge's ruling:

The evidence in this case, she found, “strengthens the conclusion that the N.Y.P.D.’s inaccurate training has taught officers the following lesson: Stop and question first, develop reasonable suspicion later.”

The fact that a person was merely seen entering or leaving a building was not enough to permit the police to stop someone, “even if the building is located in a high-crime area, and regardless of the time of day,” the judge ruled. Nor was it enough for an officer to conduct a stop simply because the officer had observed the person move furtively, Judge Scheindlin said. (The forms that the police fill out after each street stop offer “furtive” movements as a basis for the stop.)

So what you said about the NYPD, that they were stopping and frisking ANYONE they saw fit is a lie. They had reason to do so.

If they want to stop someone because they look like they may be up to no good, then do it in a Constitutional way. By doing things this way, they are setting themselves up to have the case dismissed. That doesn't help anyone.

The statistics you provided pointed out who was comitting the crimes. How does that bolster your argument?

The stats I provided were an answer to Vrai's question. Nothing more.

In 2011 alone, about 685,000 New Yorkers were stopped by police, most of them black and Latino. Ninety percent of those stops resulted in no arrest.

How is that effective?

Should we bypass all the law abiding citizens' constitutional rights to catch a handful of bad guys?

 

[vraiblonde]

Yea, I'm sure MLK envisioned the NYPD being able to stop and frisk anyone they see fit.

Mainly minorities.

The NYPD stops and frisks when they have probable cause or a BOLO. They do not stop and frisk just for the fun of doing it. If minorities are the ones primarily committing the crimes, then they will be the ones primarily detained and spoken to. Profiling: Catching criminals since time began.

As far as what MLK envisioned, I'm pretty sure his vision didn't include black ghettos infested with drugs and drive-by shootings. He almost certainly didn't envision the LA riots, or Al Sharpton. I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't approve of Jesse Jackson's shenanigans. If memory serves, he wasn't a huge fan of Malcolm X and they had a rather distinct disagreement on how blacks should gain equality. And he damn sure wouldn't be happy that blacks are gunning down their own race mates in their own neighborhoods.

So you might want to rethink your position because everything we know about MLK says you're wrong.

 

[vraiblonde]

How is that effective?

Are you serious?

I just finished reading Donnie Brasco - very different from the movie, btw - so I'll get back with you on this. Have to run the dog to the groomer.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Are you serious?

I just finished reading Donnie Brasco - very different from the movie, btw - so I'll get back with you on this. Have to run the dog to the groomer.

Would you say a 10% success rate is effective?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The NYPD stops and frisks when they have probable cause or a BOLO. They do not stop and frisk just for the fun of doing it. If minorities are the ones primarily committing the crimes, then they will be the ones primarily detained and spoken to. Profiling: Catching criminals since time began.

As far as what MLK envisioned, I'm pretty sure his vision didn't include black ghettos infested with drugs and drive-by shootings. He almost certainly didn't envision the LA riots, or Al Sharpton. I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't approve of Jesse Jackson's shenanigans. If memory serves, he wasn't a huge fan of Malcolm X and they had a rather distinct disagreement on how blacks should gain equality. And he damn sure wouldn't be happy that blacks are gunning down their own race mates in their own neighborhoods.

So you might want to rethink your position because everything we know about MLK says you're wrong.

I'm sure he didn't envision that, but, again do we ignore the Constitutional rights of law abidiign citizens to stop a handful of crimes?

If so, why aren't you all for an assault weapons ban? (that's for everyone, not just you Vrai)

It's sort of the same logic, no? The 2nd Ammendment says "shall not be infringed", but lets ban all assault rifles, so that no one can use them in another mass shooting. It'll save a few lives, no?

Let's also allow cops to circumvent the 4th Ammendment, so that 1 in 10 people they stop could be involved in a crime.

 

[tom88]

In 2011 alone, about 685,000 New Yorkers were stopped by police, most of them black and Latino. Ninety percent of those stops resulted in no arrest.

How is that effective?

Should we bypass all the law abiding citizens' constitutional rights to catch a handful of bad guys?

Read Terry v. Ohio. You really have no clue. You are a liar and constantly attempt to deceive with misinformation. It is my opinion that you have no integrity which is why I am certain you always look to find fault with those brave men and women in our society who do. I think you find it easy to lie, therefore you assume others would as well.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Read Terry v. Ohio. You really have no clue. You are a liar and constantly attempt to deceive with misinformation. It is my opinion that you have no integrity which is why I am certain you always look to find fault with those brave men and women in our society who do. I think you find it easy to lie, therefore you assume others would as well.

I'm guessing that federal judge has no clue also?

You'll find what the judge said in all that "misinformation" in the links I posted...

Stop trying to make this about me disagreeing with bad cops. That's not what this topic is about. If you'd like to discuss that, make your own thread.

I find Judge Douglas' dissent of the Terry case interesting.

I agree that petitioner was "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. I also agree that frisking petitioner and his companions for guns was a "search." But it is a mystery how that "search" and that "seizure" can be constitutional by Fourth Amendment standards unless there was "probable cause" to believe that a crime had been committed or a crime was in the process of being committed or a crime was about to be committed.

The opinion of the Court disclaims the existence of "probable cause." If loitering were in issue and that was the offense charged, there would be "probable cause" shown. But the crime here is carrying concealed weapons; and there is no basis for concluding that the officer had "probable cause" for believing that that crime was being committed. Had a warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore, have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act only if there is a showing of "probable cause." We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a "seizure" and conduct a "search" than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again.

In other words, police officers up to today have been permitted to effect arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. At the time of their "seizure" without a warrant, they must possess facts concerning the person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate that "probable cause" was indeed present. The term "probable cause" rings a bell of certainty that is not sounded by phrases such as "reasonable suspicion."Moreover, the meaning of "probable cause" is deeply imbedded in our constitutional history. As we stated in Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100-102:

The requirement of probable cause has roots that are deep in our history. The general warrant, in which the name of the person to be arrested was left blank, and the writs of assistance, against which James Otis inveighed, both perpetuated the oppressive practice of allowing the police to arrest and search on suspicion. Police control took the place of judicial control, since no showing of "probable cause" before a magistrate was required.

The infringement on personal liberty of any "seizure" of a person can only be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment if we require the police to possess "probable cause" before they seize him. Only that line draws a meaningful distinction between an officer's mere inkling and the presence of facts within the officer's personal knowledge which would convince a reasonable man that the person seized has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a particular crime.

To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth, is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched.

There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.

Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.

 

[vraiblonde]

Would you say a 10% success rate is effective?

It is to their victims, yes.

Rousting is as old as law enforcement. Even sheriff's back in wild west days used to roust nests of suspicious characters. It keeps bad guys on their toes, let's them know someone is watching them, and is a great tool in crime prevention. "Whadda you boys doing here? You got some ID?" Now you have names in case something does happen.

"Why" rousting doesn't culminate in many arrests is, forgive me, a stupid question. You'd have to be a dumber than average criminal to commit a crime while a cop is standing there. At the very least you have to ditch your stuff when you see the po-po coming at you for a chat. If you were going to break in somewhere, well you surely will be putting that on hold. At least temporarily.

If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind talking to the police. Some cop pulls me over because a woman in a red Rav4 just fled the scene of a crime, I'm not going to give him/her a hard time. I'd be happy that the cops are doing something to try and keep us safe.

It's not your constitutional right to not have to talk to the police, and criminals have all the rights in the world when it comes to our judicial system, otherwise they'd be locked up instead of put on probation, suspended sentences, nolle prosequi, etc, etc.

 

[tom88]

I find Judge Douglas' dissent of the Terry case interesting.

I'm sure you do. Many of your opinions are in the minority.

 

[kwillia]

I'm guessing that federal judge has no clue also?

You'll find what the judge said in all that "misinformation" in the links I posted...

Stop trying to make this about me disagreeing with bad cops. That's not what this topic is about. If you'd like to discuss that, make your own thread.

I find Judge Douglas' dissent of the Terry case interesting.

dude, really? You quoted the ONE dissenting judge that the other EIGHT supreme court justices disagreed with.

The eight supreme court justices that ruled against your judge upheld that it is constitutional for a police officer to "stop and frisk" someone believed to be armed for the safety of the officer based off of reasonable suspicion, which is different than probable cause. The stop and frisk (a.k.a Terry stop, named after this case) allows a cop to only look for weapons in the outer clothing and nothing else.

For those who care, this is the full decision on Terry v. Ohio:

Terry v. Ohio - 392 U.S. 1 (1968) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[BOP]

I think it would have been wonderful if Martin Luther Kings dream would have been realized, however, it has not. and will not be realized.

You see, I dont think that he had any thoughts of black people obtaining their postions simply because of the color of their skin, or that those blacks that didnt want to work would be kept as pets of society.

His dream was that blacks, ALL blacks would be treated equally to whites, that they would not be judged by the color of their skin, even if it was to benefit them.
He would roll over in his grave if he saw what his "dream" has become.

Instead of being treated as equals, they are now being looked at in the same manner that they were in Kings time, in the same manner that they were looked at the day he made his speech, the day he was shot.

The government, through its affirmative action programs, its minority targeting programs etc.. is telling us that the blacks are not equal, they are less, but we must endure their stupidity in the school and in the work force.

That was not what the Great Martin Luther King had in mind. In his dream he saw a world were blacks would have the opportunity to achieve, the same as a white, where they would have the opportunity to fail, the same as a white. Where their hard work and achievements would be the driving factor in their success. Not some program or programs designed to keep racism alive and well.

Post of the year! Maybe decade!

 

[BOP]

Thank you I didn't think your post came across as angry, though, nor did you make an ass out of yourself. Your points were dead on and demonstrably true.

Liberals like to pretend that blacks have made these enormous social leaps, thanks to Democrats and their social programs. And they have in some areas, but in other areas they're worse off than they've ever been.

Blacks made headway in specific arenas, notably entertainment, and later, sports, and that momentum has built from there. It didn't start in the 60s, but much earlier. Often success came at great personal sacrifice and against huge odds. Blacks today are being told by the left that they are second class citizens, and effectively slaves, whereas nearly the opposite is true.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

dude, really? You quoted the ONE dissenting judge that the other EIGHT supreme court justices disagreed with.

The eight supreme court justices that ruled against your judge upheld that it is constitutional for a police officer to "stop and frisk" someone believed to be armed for the safety of the officer based off of reasonable suspicion, which is different than probable cause. The stop and frisk (a.k.a Terry stop, named after this case) allows a cop to only look for weapons in the outer clothing and nothing else.

For those who care, this is the full decision on Terry v. Ohio:

Terry v. Ohio - 392 U.S. 1 (1968) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

I'm fully aware of Terry v. Ohio, but thank you.

I posted the dissent, because I said I "find it interesting". The case has been around 30+ years. I'm not arguing with 9 judges.

Interesting because, in his words, the man was "seized", he and his friends were "searched". 4th Ammendment states no search or seizure without probable cause. Mearly suspecting someone of a crime isn't probable cause. Nor will a judge give you a warrant based on suspicion.

This case basically gave officers the right to use their own judgement to find reasonable suspicion. Suspicion that otherwise would not get them a warrant.

I'm all for police having the ability to protect themselves, but lets be honest, police are people, and I've heard it time and time again that they "are only human", or "they make mistakes". Well, those mistakes can, and have put innocent people in jail.

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, those mistakes can, and have put innocent people in jail.

Who? What innocent people have gone to jail because cops made a "mistake"?

Because you practically have to murder someone right in front of a cop's eyes to go to jail these days. Or have so many priors that the judge finally decides you need to cool your heels for a month or two.

 

[Lurk]

I think it is a testament to this great nation that the dream of Martin Luther King Jr has been realized. People of color have achieved the highest offices of business and government. People are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

RIP.

Yes, I am sure as he spins in his grave, he believes the nation today is precisely as he dreamed. But then again....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Who? What innocent people have gone to jail because cops made a "mistake"?

Because you practically have to murder someone right in front of a cop's eyes to go to jail these days. Or have so many priors that the judge finally decides you need to cool your heels for a month or two.

Not everywhere has the judicial system of St. Mary's.

Alton Logan was convicted of killing a security guard at a McDonald's in Chicago in 1982. Police arrested him after a tip and got three eyewitnesses to identify him. Logan, his mother and brother all testified he was at home asleep when the murder occurred. But a jury found him guilty of first degree murder

Attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz knew Logan had good reason to think that, because they knew he was innocent. And they knew that because their client, Andrew Wilson, who they were defending for killing two policemen, confessed to them that he had also killed the security guard at McDonald's - the crime Logan was charged with.

26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison - CBS News

“There’s no amount of money that could compensate for being in a cell for 17 years — especially because I didn’t know if I would ever come home,” Colon told the Daily News.

Colon’s conviction was “caused by the pervasive misconduct of New York City police detectives and the Manhattan district attorney’s office. . . . Defendants engaged in a continuous pattern of extreme and outrageous conduct directed at the plaintiff,” says the suit filed Wednesday.

Innocent man Danny Colon seeks $120 million in lawsuit against two NYPD detectives and Manhattan prosecutor - NY Daily News

Allen was convicted in 1983 and served more than 30 years behind bars before Cole County Circuit Court Judge Green ordered his release on November 14, 2012. Allen’s exoneration was delayed when Attorney General Koster filed an appeal to a state intermediate appeals court, despite Joyce’s earlier announcement that she would not retry Allen.

Police initially arrested Allen for the 1982 rape and murder of a St. Louis court reporter by accident, mistaking him for a suspect in the case. Even though Detective Herbert Riley realized Allen was not the suspect, Riley decided to interrogate him anyway. Allen, who is a diagnosed schizophrenic and had been admitted to psychiatric wards several times, ended up making a false recorded confession that one of the interrogating officers has since conceded was questionable. On the recording of the interrogation, Allen informs the officers that he is under the influence of alcohol. Throughout the interrogation, the detective prompts Allen to give him answers to fit the crime, often asking Allen to change his answer to do so.

The Innocence Project - Missouri Man Exonerated After Serving More Than 30 Years for a Rape and Murder Evidence Shows He Didnit Commit

Faulty hair analysis contributed to the wrongful conviction of Willie Grimes in North Carolina who served 24 years for a rape he didn’t commit. In response to exonerations in two other cases where FBI analysts provided faulty hair analysis, the FBI announced that it would undertake a widespread review of cases involving hair analysis, which, given the lack of science behind this forensic discipline, is likely to uncover many more wrongful convictions.

David Lee Gavitt, who served more than 25 years in Michigan prisons for the arson murder of his wife and two daughters, was exonerated after prosecutors agreed to vacate his conviction because it was based on outdated arson science. For decades fire investigators gave faulty testimony about the origin of fires that undoubtedly contributed to many more wrongful arson convictions.

The Innocence Project - Home

 

[bcp]

Not everywhere has the judicial system of St. Mary's.





26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison - CBS News



Innocent man Danny Colon seeks $120 million in lawsuit against two NYPD detectives and Manhattan prosecutor - NY Daily News



The Innocence Project - Missouri Man Exonerated After Serving More Than 30 Years for a Rape and Murder Evidence Shows He Didnit Commit





The Innocence Project - Home

what is your answer then? the only real alternative is to just not arrest or jail anyone.
you come up with plenty of examples of bad cops, bad judgements bad traffic laws, so I can only assume that you do have some answers or at least suggestions.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

what is your answer then? the only real alternative is to just not arrest or jail anyone.
you come up with plenty of examples of bad cops, bad judgements bad traffic laws, so I can only assume that you do have some answers or at least suggestions.

I assume you mean an answer to the Stop and Frisk program?

I'd say do the same thing they did, before the program.