Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Ringing Defeat for Stop-and-Frisk and a Huge Win for Civil Liberties
Slate ^ | Jan. 9, 2013 | Justin Peters

Posted on 01/09/2013 9:07:25 PM PST by Zhang Fei

In March of 2012, several New York City residents sued the New York Police Department over alleged overreaches of its controversial stop-and-frisk policy.* The plaintiffs argued that the NYPD “has a widespread practice of making unlawful stops on suspicion of trespass” outside certain buildings in the Bronx, and asked the court for relief from the department’s Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP). On Tuesday, they got their wish. Finding that NYPD officials showed “deliberate indifference” to the unconstitutionality of the relevant incidents, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin issued an injunction prohibiting unjustifiable stop-and-frisk actions outside of certain Bronx buildings.

This is obviously a blow to the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy, and it possibly carries long-term implications for similar policies elsewhere. The TAP case is the first of three stop-and-frisk cases pending in Scheindlin’s court, and this injunction might indicate how she will eventually rule in the other two. Predictive value aside, the injunction is a powerful rebuke to systematic law enforcement excesses, and should be read and studied by anyone with even a passing interest in civil liberties.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
Stop and frisk, a program instituted near hives of villainy in NYC that resulted in arrests of criminals 20% of the time, has now had an injunction slapped on it. I'm gonna bet that NYC crime stats are about to go through the roof. And they'll have Judge Shira Scheindlin to thank for it.
1 posted on 01/09/2013 9:07:31 PM PST by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

>> resulted in arrests of criminals 20% of the time

And the 4 out of 5 that weren’t criminals: what about them and their rights?


2 posted on 01/09/2013 9:14:25 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

A 20% success rate does not justify molesting the rest of us law abiding 80%.

It’s an infringement of our right to go peaceably about our business.


3 posted on 01/09/2013 9:17:29 PM PST by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Good! It violates 1st, 4th and 5th amendments and even right of association.

If a person is not suspected of a specific crime that would call for search and seizure then LEO should know it’s unlawful for them to do so and Under Color Law could be illegal.


4 posted on 01/09/2013 9:17:51 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
I'm all for controlling crime. I run miscreants off regularly.

Jackboots not required to do that effectively.

/johnny

5 posted on 01/09/2013 9:18:05 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
Yeah right. I don't know if your trying to be sarcastic or really like the heavy hand of the state. But, those buildings can be patrolled by private security, paid by the owner.

Nor does the police have the power, nor should they be accosting and harassing the individual, if there is no actual breaking of the law.

The next step is stopping everyone, just to see if they have a weapon on them.

6 posted on 01/09/2013 9:19:25 PM PST by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
And the 4 out of 5 that weren’t criminals: what about them and their rights?

Only criminals are arrested. Non-criminals are sent on their way.

7 posted on 01/09/2013 9:27:35 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

>> Non-criminals are sent on their way.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in this country, don’t law-abiding citizens have the right to go about their business without interference from the police?

In other words, why should a law-abiding citizen have to put up with this crap? So that one in FIVE can be taken downtown?

How is this any different from stopping EVERY car on the interstate to find a small percentage of drunks? Or keeping EVERY law abiding citizen from owning an assault rifle because some tiny percentage MIGHT commit a crime with one?

“Guilty until proven innocent” is NOT the basis upon which our civil rights rest, FRiend.


8 posted on 01/09/2013 9:33:53 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
Yeah right. I don't know if your trying to be sarcastic or really like the heavy hand of the state.

The gun laws in NYC being what they are, stop-and-frisk is an excellent way to prevent crime. It's one of the reasons crime in NYC is much lower than in the South, despite a demographic profile similar to many big southern cities. This isn't a body cavity search - it's a quick pat down similar to the kind people get at airports.

9 posted on 01/09/2013 9:34:24 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
How is this any different from stopping EVERY car on the interstate to find a small percentage of drunks? Or keeping EVERY law abiding citizen from owning an assault rifle because some tiny percentage MIGHT commit a crime with one?

Stopping cars on the interstate interferes with the flow of traffic. Stopping people on sidewalks doesn't. And the semi-automatic rifles used in unlawful killings for the past 100 years are .02% of the present stock of semi-automatic rifles, whereas 20% of the people frisked are criminals of one kind or another. If 20% of semi-automatic rifles were used in mass killings, there might be a case for strictly regulating them, but we're not there yet.

10 posted on 01/09/2013 9:45:21 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Your posts on this thread ring like that of an illiterate leftist anti-Bill of Rights freak.


11 posted on 01/09/2013 9:54:23 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Your reasoning and responses are comical.


12 posted on 01/09/2013 9:55:25 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Sorry, the actions of the NYPD run afoul of a SCOTUS decision from the 80’s concerning similar actions by CA LEO’s:

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)

Might want to check that out.


13 posted on 01/09/2013 10:00:30 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
Your posts on this thread ring like that of an illiterate leftist anti-Bill of Rights freak.

Leftists hate stop-and-frisk. Scheindlin is a rabid leftist. Slate is about as close to the Nation as you can get without being the Nation. The Obama DOJ is stepping on NYC to prevent this practice from continuing. How leftist can it be?

14 posted on 01/09/2013 10:00:50 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper
Your reasoning and responses are comical.

They might be comical to you, but they're a matter of life-and-death in NYC, which brought its aggravated assault and murder rates down mainly on the strength of this type of enforcement. I'd prefer laxer enforcement and an automatic death penalty for murder and multi-decade prison terms for aggravated assault. But this is NYC, and stop-and-frisk is a consolation prize for people who want safe streets.

15 posted on 01/09/2013 10:05:39 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Sorry, but I’m having difficulty understanding your logic on this. It is well established that I have a right to walk down the street without being randomly harassed by the police unless that have solid reason to believe I committed some crime. How can you justify such a blatant disregard for several constitutional rights for every innocent person who is stopped? Do you also support TSA searches? What if they start setting up on the roadsides and stopping people? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I really would like to know the logic behind this manner of thinking because it goes against everything we know as freedom.


16 posted on 01/09/2013 10:07:03 PM PST by FunkyZero (... I've got a Grand Piano to prop up my mortal remains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

So EVERYONE is a potential ‘criminal’ therefore all need to be frisked just to be sure they aren’t? That would be the logical conclusion of your reasoning. Spreading the TSA philosophy to all the public no matter where they are....


17 posted on 01/09/2013 10:08:04 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
Sorry, the actions of the NYPD run afoul of a SCOTUS decision from the 80’s concerning similar actions by CA LEO’s:

The black-robed dictators-for-life also rubber-stamped Obamacare and came up with Roe v Wade. I suspect NYC will appeal the injunction. We'll see what happens.

18 posted on 01/09/2013 10:08:44 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero
It is well established that I have a right to walk down the street without being randomly harassed by the police unless that have solid reason to believe I committed some crime. How can you justify such a blatant disregard for several constitutional rights for every innocent person who is stopped? Do you also support TSA searches? What if they start setting up on the roadsides and stopping people?

The police have limited resources. There's paperwork involved. We vote for these people. They're not going to frisk people for the heck of it. If there are any problems, you can bet that minority populations will be on top of this way before you are. Remember - these things aren't cast in stone. If there are issues, we will put pressure on the relevant politicians. This judicial diktat rams Judge Scheindlin's leftist viewpoints down New Yorker throats.

19 posted on 01/09/2013 10:14:12 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yadent
So EVERYONE is a potential ‘criminal’ therefore all need to be frisked just to be sure they aren’t? That would be the logical conclusion of your reasoning. Spreading the TSA philosophy to all the public no matter where they are....

I don't see where you get the "everyone". The TSA doesn't frisk "everyone" - just people who are about to get on board the 400 ton missiles we call commercial airplanes, next to which a 1 ton JDAM is a pinprick.

Public safety departments - even one as large as the NYPD - don't have unlimited resources. If they abuse their power, we can force them out of office and even put them in prison. That's why we have elections - so we can put our collective foot down. 20% is a huge success rate. It represents over 100,000 arrests of actual criminals.

20 posted on 01/09/2013 10:21:32 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

Why did the judge say only “certain Bronx buildings”? Don’t all Bronx buildings deserve equal treatment?


21 posted on 01/09/2013 10:39:53 PM PST by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

You need to get up to speed. The TSA is operating at many public places now not just airports. The ‘safety’ philosophy IS spreading. Also the police don’t arrest ‘criminals’, they arrest suspects. Again, according to your logic, if the authorities were to ‘stop and frisk’ twice, three, four times as many people would they not be taking more potential ‘criminals’ out of circulation? The theoretical logical conclusion being if everyone was suspected and frisked, crime could become almost nonexistent. Maybe NYC needs to add some additional taxes and hire more law enforcement in order to really bring the crime rate way down. That little thing about unreasonable search and seizure is just so passe.....


22 posted on 01/09/2013 10:45:59 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: yadent
Also the police don’t arrest ‘criminals’, they arrest suspects.

That 20% number represents criminals:

According to NYPD statistics, almost one in five stopped were guilty of a crime.[3] The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino.[1][3][4]

The Obama DOJ is stepping all over NYC probably because too many black and Hispanic criminals are being picked up.

23 posted on 01/09/2013 10:50:26 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

They can appeal it, and they’re going to lose.

The SCOTUS doesn’t turn back on stare decisis.


24 posted on 01/09/2013 10:50:26 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
They can appeal it, and they’re going to lose. The SCOTUS doesn’t turn back on stare decisis.

It all depends on whether they hold that other precedent to be relevant. A lot of this is rhetorical gymnastics to fit a ruling into preconceived ideological stances. I understand there's a view that judges are gods on earth whose every ruling is inerrant and springs purely from the circumstances at hand. Back here on earth, it's pretty clear that every judge comes to a case with his particular ideological axe to grind.

25 posted on 01/09/2013 10:56:04 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
They can appeal it, and they’re going to lose. The SCOTUS doesn’t turn back on stare decisis.

What about Terry v. Ohio?

26 posted on 01/09/2013 11:07:01 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
And the 4 out of 5 that weren’t criminals: what about them and their rights?

I believe under "stop and frisk" laws the police may not use any drugs they find as evidence, only weapons, otherwise the arrest rate would probably be much higher.

27 posted on 01/09/2013 11:16:01 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
From http://manhattanda.org/trespass-affidavit-program:
In order to combat drug dealing in the public areas of buildings, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office developed the Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP).

In buildings where drugs are sold, tenants complain about the constant foot traffic by unknown individuals. These unwelcome visitors often loiter in the public areas to sell or use narcotics. Sometimes dealers act as doormen, directing buyers and intimidating residents. Changing locks and posting signs forbidding trespassing is frequently ineffective, and law abiding tenants and landlords can feel powerless to rid their buildings of drug trafficking and the accompanying disorder.

The Trespass Affidavit Program, staffed by our Community Affairs Unit, gives communities an opportunity to change these conditions. When the Community Affairs Unit receives confidential complaints about drug trafficking activity in a particular building, it contacts landlords and registers them in TAP. Landlords must then post signs throughout their building reading “Tenants and Their Guests ONLY,” provide the police with a complete list of tenants and keys to their building, and permit police officers to conduct “vertical patrols” in the building. When necessary, officers may make arrests for criminal trespassing.

Currently, more than 3,200 buildings are enrolled in TAP. The program is a valuable tool for law enforcement, allowing it to address prostitution complaints, burglary and assault locations, vacant building problems, and privately-owned empty lots where trespassing is a common occurrence.


28 posted on 01/09/2013 11:21:12 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Landlords must then post signs throughout their building reading “Tenants and Their Guests ONLY,” provide the police with a complete list of tenants and keys to their building, and permit police officers to conduct “vertical patrols” in the building.

This is an excellent program - cops essentially doing private security work in crime-ridden buildings for landlords at no extra charge. If it's dismantled, law-abiding tenants will pay the price in body counts and permanent disabilities, given the kinds of things that go on there. I would be not be surprised if the plaintiffs were being paid by drug dealers to file the complaints.

29 posted on 01/09/2013 11:30:34 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

After reading your entire post, I am still trying to see where the po-po have any right to DETAIN AND SEARCH EVERYONE THEY SEE simply because they are in a certain area.

It’s like a DUI roadblock for pedestrians, but FAR more insidious.

Has EVERYONE lost their senses?


30 posted on 01/09/2013 11:42:20 PM PST by Don W (There is no gun problem, there is a lack of humanity problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei; All

I wonder if they were planning anything like this in Chicago with it’s 500 murders a year problem.


31 posted on 01/09/2013 11:53:41 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick; Zhang Fei; no-to-illegals; All

I remember a NY study in which police stopped every 10th car in the evening going to Long Island for alcohol testing. They found and amazingly large number of violations, far greater than drunk driving accident figures had suggested. The conclusion was that middle aged office workers who had a few too many after work were driving extra careful and not causing accidents. Accidents are mostly caused by reckless wild acting, inexperienced young drivers, predominantly male.


32 posted on 01/09/2013 11:58:44 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Don W
I am still trying to see where the po-po have any right to DETAIN AND SEARCH EVERYONE THEY SEE simply because they are in a certain area.

Where are you getting that?

33 posted on 01/10/2013 12:07:08 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

You’re as full of excrement as a Xmas Goose. Are you sure you aren’t a Chicom plant? In Communist China the way the NYPD has been operating is SOP! It is incredible to me that anyone would give up their Constitutional Rights in this manner. Go home!


34 posted on 01/10/2013 12:45:19 AM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
Also the police don’t arrest ‘criminals’, they arrest suspects.
That 20% number represents criminals:
According to NYPD statistics, almost one in five stopped were guilty of a crime.[3] The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino.[1][3][4]

The citation ([3]) in the Wikipedia article does not support the assertion that "one in five stopped were guilty of a crime," and that assertion is contradicted by numerous sources that state that the arrest/summons rate is not 20%, but rather 12%.

35 posted on 01/10/2013 3:37:03 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
"This is an excellent program - cops essentially doing private security work in crime-ridden buildings for landlords at no extra charge. If it's dismantled, law-abiding tenants will pay the price in body counts and permanent disabilities, given the kinds of things that go on there."

Which said cops have absolute NO BUSINESS doing. If the building/tenants want to be guarded, they need to hire security to do so. The idea that cops should do INTERNAL PATROLS in a PRIVATE BUILDING is completely wrong from every perspective I can think of.

36 posted on 01/10/2013 6:02:15 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

And when they start coming door to door, yours and your neighbors, you are ok with that. Gotta be sure you do not have contraband in your house...and when they do your neighbors too, that are doing it to protect you.

And that mouthful is what you have been saying about the stop and search crap, so how is it different when they knock on your door at 3 am?


37 posted on 01/10/2013 7:16:14 AM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
....stop-and-frisk is an excellent way to prevent crime

Your blind submission to government authority and blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights is troubling for someone who probably fancies themselves a "conservative".

You know what else we could do to prevent crime? Have law enforcement check every house and remove all guns, no exceptions. Using your logic, why not?

38 posted on 01/10/2013 7:39:13 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Felonious thugs have the right to carry, not law abiding citizens.


39 posted on 01/10/2013 7:43:57 AM PST by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Your blind submission to government authority and blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights is troubling for someone who probably fancies themselves a "conservative".

Stop and frisk laws are based on a Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio.

40 posted on 01/10/2013 9:38:36 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Non-criminals are sent on their way AFTER being treated like criminals. 80% of the time they’re stopping innocent citizens, that is wrong.


41 posted on 01/10/2013 9:45:36 AM PST by discostu (I recommend a fifth of Jack and a bottle of Prozac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Everybody with more than half a brain in their head hates stop and frisk because it’s fascist BS that treats all citizens like criminals.


42 posted on 01/10/2013 9:48:40 AM PST by discostu (I recommend a fifth of Jack and a bottle of Prozac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

This king of ‘law’ is another brick in a totalitarian wall being constructed by liberal elites.

They’re also the same people when faced with a REAL criminal do everything they can to free him, reduce a sentence, or half way house them before their time.

Liberal elites don’t give a damn about crime - it’s control they’re after ... and not even ‘control’ of criminals - but of citizens.

Laws like this sound good on the surface, but we know who’s behind them - as our founding fathers also knew...


43 posted on 01/10/2013 9:53:56 AM PST by GOPJ (Obama GAVE guns to Mexican drug lords...Now he wants to TAKE our guns? It's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Stop and frisk laws are based on a Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio.

The law/practice at issue in Terry v. Ohio is easily distinguishable from what was/is happening in the Bronx.

44 posted on 01/10/2013 9:55:19 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Hmmm...

DISARMED law abiding tenants and landlords can feel powerless to rid their buildings of drug trafficking and the accompanying disorder.

Maybe New York should re-think its policy of forcibly disarming "law abiding tenants and landlords".

45 posted on 01/10/2013 10:05:24 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but in this country, don’t law-abiding citizens have the right to go about their business without interference from the police?”

What are you some kinda gun nut or something? Where in the world would you get such an idea. The security of the state and the masses demands such searches. After all, as so many here have pointed out many time, “If you have nothing to hide then why would you worry about being searched? (or questioned, or forced to take a breathalyzer etc. etc.)


46 posted on 01/10/2013 10:35:31 AM PST by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vette6387
You’re as full of excrement as a Xmas Goose. Are you sure you aren’t a Chicom plant?

I'm not Chinese, although I have traveled to China to see the stacks of masonry we call the Great Wall (the Chinese apparently call it the Ten Thousand Mile Long Wall) and I have read the Romance of the Three Kingdoms in English translation, so maybe that makes me an honorary Chinese. I can tell you that the Chinese police are nowhere near this conscientious. Petty crime was out of control, to the extent that the local women never carried purses. At least that's the explanation I got from the tour guide. It's the Chinese version of what Sam Harris called anarcho-tyranny.

The average cop doesn't want to waste his time searching people - it's unpleasant, and standards of hygiene vary. All he wants to do is plunk his butt down at the local diner/donut shop and have some coffee to accompany his jelly donut.

I don't understand the sensitivity to this kind of stuff. Cops before the 60's routinely did it and crime was a fraction of current levels, to the extent that people did not lock their doors or their vehicles. Then the Federal courts turfed vagrancy laws and other statutes used to harass criminals, and - lo and behold - crime skyrocketed. The way people today talk about this law enforcement approach, you'd think the country was one big gulag before the unelected tyrants in black robes gave criminals free rein to do whatever they want whenever they want.

47 posted on 01/10/2013 10:44:30 AM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gdani
The law/practice at issue in Terry v. Ohio is easily distinguishable from what was/is happening in the Bronx.

Feel free to elaborate.

48 posted on 01/10/2013 10:48:38 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
Only criminals are arrested. Non-criminals are sent on their way.

Sorry FRiend, but that has a strong whiff of boot-licking to it .. "We're only going to search your house for {phobia du jour} and if there's nothing there you have nothing to worry about"

49 posted on 01/10/2013 10:50:12 AM PST by tomkat (-/\/\/\-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
This king of ‘law’ is another brick in a totalitarian wall being constructed by liberal elites. They’re also the same people when faced with a REAL criminal do everything they can to free him, reduce a sentence, or half way house them before their time. Liberal elites don’t give a damn about crime - it’s control they’re after ... and not even ‘control’ of criminals - but of citizens. Laws like this sound good on the surface, but we know who’s behind them - as our founding fathers also knew...

You're constructing a monolith where one doesn't exist. Bloomberg is a law-and-order liberal. Judge Scheindlin is a must not be too hard on the criminals liberal. Bloomberg favors stop-and-frisk. Scheindlin opposes it. Slate opposes it. Heck - most liberals and minorities around the country oppose stop-and-frisk. Because the net result is that too many minority criminals end up in prison instead of earning an honest living on the streets by dealing drugs, stealing from and mugging people. Liberals in this country aren't totalitarians - they're let-it-all-hang-out hippies who miss the 60's or young 'uns who wish they had been teenagers during the 60's (while getting high draft numbers, of course).

50 posted on 01/10/2013 10:57:56 AM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson