BTW, Bloomburg has a new campaign for NY. He wants to ban styrofoam.

You have to understand what Stop and Frisk is. If a police officer sees a person(s) on the street who he reasonably suspects has or is in the middle of committing a crime, he may stop that person and question him. If the police officer sees a bulge in the person's pocket he may frisk that person to see if the bulge is a weapon.

Stop and Frisk does not mean that a police officer can go up to a person on the street, throw him up against a car, and search his pockets and inside his pants for no good reason. There has to be some reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. The NYPD has been averaging over half a million Stop and Frisks a year for the last 10 years, and the results in arrests and gun seizures have been atrocious. They get better results when a local church has a voluntary gun surrender program!

A 76-year-old Brooklyn woman was punched in the back of the head by a stranger in what residents fear could be the city's tenth "knockout game" attack.
Yvonne Small fell to the ground after being punched by her assailant on Alabama Ave. and Wortman Ave. in East New York about 11:35 a.m., according to police sources.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/elderly-woman-city-10th-knockout-game-victim-article-1.1532989#ixzz2m8t2fPXs

News Buzzard wrote:You have to understand what Stop and Frisk is. If a police officer sees a person(s) on the street who he reasonably suspects has or is in the middle of committing a crime, he may stop that person and question him. If the police officer sees a bulge in the person's pocket he may frisk that person to see if the bulge is a weapon.

Stop and Frisk does not mean that a police officer can go up to a person on the street, throw him up against a car, and search his pockets and inside his pants for no good reason. There has to be some reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. The NYPD has been averaging over half a million Stop and Frisks a year for the last 10 years, and the results in arrests and gun seizures have been atrocious. They get better results when a local church has a voluntary gun surrender program!

Baloney!

News Buzzard wrote:They get better results when a local church has a voluntary gun surrender program!

Have you ever seen the results of such "buy-backs". It's all "feel-good", especially when they make NO distinction between real firearms. stolen firearms, extremely valuable antique/collector firearms, black powder firearms, and airguns.



"Stop and Frisk" is handier to take drug dealers off the streets.

But NYC is a sewer anyway. Hannity says he'll "Leave in a Flash".

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Hawk wrote:There's something wrong with "The One Broken Window" concept?

 

As a matter of simple common sense, nothing that I can see.

"The One Broken Window" concept is the description of Rudy Guiliani's philosophy of "Crime-Fighting".

He would have made the US Presidency work.

I think you are correct.

News Hawk wrote:"Stop and Frisk" is handier to take drug dealers off the streets.

But NYC is a sewer anyway. Hannity says he'll "Leave in a Flash".

You don't have a clue about NY. Areas that were once considered hell holes, Chelsea, Hells Kitchen, Greenpoint, Williamsburg and many others are now considered very popular and very expensive spots. Chelsea was one of the arm pits of NY when we were young, and now you can't get a loft down there for less than $1 million! Do some reading about the High Line in Chelsea. They turned an old overhead railroad spur into very desirable parkland. Go figure!

You sound like you have been to NYC many times.

News Buzzard wrote:You have to understand what Stop and Frisk is. If a police officer sees a person(s) on the street who he reasonably suspects has or is in the middle of committing a crime, he may stop that person and question him. If the police officer sees a bulge in the person's pocket he may frisk that person to see if the bulge is a weapon.

Stop and Frisk does not mean that a police officer can go up to a person on the street, throw him up against a car, and search his pockets and inside his pants for no good reason. There has to be some reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. The NYPD has been averaging over half a million Stop and Frisks a year for the last 10 years, and the results in arrests and gun seizures have been atrocious. They get better results when a local church has a voluntary gun surrender program!

Not necessarily.

Either way, nothing says freedom like cops randomly searching, frisking and demanding "paperzz" from millions of Mundanes over the years.

Yay, democracy.

Stop and Frisk

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk

The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.

One of the most controversial police procedures is the stop and frisk search. This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person.

A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the frisk, the stop may lead to an actual arrest, but if no further evidence is found, the person is released.

Unlike a full search, a frisk is generally limited to a patting down of the outer clothing. If the officer feels what seems to be a weapon, the officer may then reach inside the person's clothing. If no weapon is felt, the search may not intrude further than the outer clothing.

Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.

Investigatory detention became an important law enforcement technique in the 1980s as police sought to curtail the trafficking of illegal drugs. In United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that police have the power to detain, question, and investigate suspected drug couriers. The case involved a Terry stop at an international airport, during which the defendant aroused suspicion by conforming to a controversial "drug courier profile" developed by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Court said that the DEA profile gave the officer reasonable suspicion, "which is more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause."

The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location. Police went to the site, found the vehicle, and detained the driver. The police then found marijuana and cocaine in the automobile. The Court observed that it was a "close case" but concluded that the tip and its corroboration were sufficiently reliable to justify the investigatory stop that ultimately led to the arrest of the driver and the seizure of the drugs.

However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000]).

In the Ohio case, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a Terry stop that was based on a phone call to the police from an anonymous informant who stated that there were two males walking westward on a particular avenue in a particular area and that one of the males was carrying a weapon in his pocket. According to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the Terry stop was supported by sufficient reasonable suspicion because significant aspects of the anonymous caller's predictions were verified. In the Wisconsin case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip that individuals were dealing drugs from a vehicle parked within view of the tipster and their confirmation, within four minutes of the tip, of readily observable information offered by the tipster, even though the officers did not independently observe any suspicious activity. In Florida v. J. L., however, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that an accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and attributes does not show that the tipster had knowledge of concealed criminal activity.

fshnski wrote:That is not how most see it. You don't like Kelly because he affectively used stop and frisk.

Yay.

I think we should take it a step further, and allow officers to randomly come into your home and inspect whenever they feel like it.

Imagine how many drug dealers and child molesters and these creepy guys who hold women hostage for years that you would catch in the act.

Rules are different in a big city.

Thank you for the analysis of Stop and Frisk, Anti Federalist. The problem in New York is that the cops were not upholding the reasonable suspicion clause. They were just saturating areas identified with high crime and stopping everything that moved, and as I said, the results were not that good. They only made arrests in about 6% of all the stops and recovered guns in less than 1%.

The number of Stop and Frisks have dropped dramatically in 2013 and crime has not gone up. Bill de Blasio trumped his opponent based on his opposition to Stop and Frisk, so it was not really a popular program, not as much as the NY Post would like us to think!

The only significant input that changed in New York since the early ’90s was its style of policing.

In 1994, under then-Commissioner William Bratton, the NYPD embraced the revolutionary idea of stopping crime before it happens, rather than just reacting after the fact by making an arrest. It began scrutinizing crime data daily and targeting its resources to where crime patterns were emerging.

Top brass held precinct commanders ruthlessly accountable for the safety of their precincts. And the department expected its officers to look out for suspicious behavior on the street and to stop and question individuals who may be preparing for a crime.

NYPD naysayers routinely point out that crime locally and nationally started dropping in 1991. What they fail to add is that in New York alone, starting in 1994, that drop went into free fall.

But New York’s ’90s crime drop could easily have petered out, as the rest of the country’s did — had the NYPD not maintained its sense of urgency in fighting crime. Preserving that urgency is the hardest challenge that departments face, and it is a testament to Commissioner Ray Kelly’s untiring stewardship that he has kept the department focused like a laser beam on public safety for over a decade.

That focus is now under dire threat. The NYPD is about to come under the thumb of two competing power sources: a federal monitor, appointed by Judge Shira Scheindlin as part of her shockingly biased ruling against the NYPD’s stop-question-and-frisk policies, and the City Council’s recklessly created Inspector General. These superfluous new bureaucrats can only muddy the chain of command and distract the NYPD from its paramount duty of protecting the law-abiding.



http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/nothing-rivals-nycs-crime-drop/

You really like sticking up for the dregs of society don't you. You like those votes. Don't care where they come from. WHL is right. Good is bad and bad is good.

fshnski wrote:You really like sticking up for the dregs of society don't you. You like those votes. Don't care where they come from. WHL is right. Good is bad and bad is good.

If 94% of the citizens being stopped walk away without so much as a summons, how do you calculate that they are the dregs of society? What is your criteria?

Statistics. If a high percentage are clean then it must be working.

You never answered about how you know so much about New York City.

My criteria is a lot higher than yours. It's based on common sense and fact.

fshnski wrote:Statistics. If a high percentage are clean then it must be working.

You never answered about how you know so much about New York City.

The law (New York State Criminal Procedure Law) states that the officer must reasonably suspect that the person about to be stopped is or has been involved in a crime, and in 94% of the cases the officer is wrong. Do you think those are good results?

For a guy who does a lot of reading of various news outlets, you've never read about the improvements of formerly terrible neighborhoods in New York? I grew up there throughout it's worst stretch, and it is much better today than it was 30 years ago. The drop in crime is a national trend for various reasons, none of which are Stop and Frisk!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

I love country living, but I know a lot of people who would never leave NY. I will always tell anyone that it's a great place to visit, with everything that there is to see!

Where did you grow up? My father was born a little north of the city. I spent some time in the Queens and Manhattan. If these neighborhoods changed for the better it was because of their location, location, location. They changes because the new people moving in came with a different idea about the important things in life.

I grew up in the Parkchester section of The Bronx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkchester,_Bronx

I remember burned out buildings throughout the city that were subsequently renovated with tons of money from the Federal, State and City governments. One of the big reasons for the renaissance of NY was the rising value of real estate throughout.

I went to the World's Fair and drove through Manhattan.

These sections you mention didn't get better because things stayed the same.

News Buzzard wrote:I grew up in the Parkchester section of The Bronx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkchester,_Bronx

I remember burned out buildings throughout the city that were subsequently renovated with tons of money from the Federal, State and City governments. One of the big reasons for the renaissance of NY was the rising value of real estate throughout.

It was game two of the 1977 World Series, a chilly, blustery October night in the South Bronx. The Yanks were already down 2-0 in the bottom of the first inning when ABC’s aerial camera panned a few blocks over from Yankee Stadium to give the world its first live glimpse of a real Bronx Cookout. “There it is, ladies and gentlemen,” Howard Cosell intoned. “The Bronx is burning.”


Gee … Why did you ever leave?

I'll never forget Cosell's remark, but The Bronx is a much different place these days, so much so that the Yankees decided to stay there. It's too bad the New Jersey Giants left! Parkchester was completely renovated and mostly gone condo. The apartments are getting good prices and the place has it's own subway stop less than 30 minutes from Grand Central Station. For those who are not wealthy the outer boroughs are becoming a more attractive place to live. I drove transit buses in Manhattan for 2 years, so I'm pretty familiar with the place.

I spent a lot of time at the World's Fair at Flushing Meadow Park. It was just a short bus ride away!

I went out with a girl for a couple of years who lived right off of Northern Blvd around Leonard Square.. She went to school in the City.

fshnski wrote:I went out with a girl for a couple of years who lived right off of Northern Blvd around Leonard Square.. She went to school in the City.

Flushing! My Mom lived nearby in her retirement for a few years. We used to eat in an Irish Pub, Bridies, on the corner of Northern Blvd and 162nd St. Great Shepherd's Pie!

fshnski wrote:Rules are different in a big city.

So, at what level of population does the Bill of Rights no longer apply?

100,000?

10,000?

1,000?

And if cops can just randomly stop people by the millions and frisk them, why can't they randomly search their homes as well?