Re: There Is No War on Cops

On 7/16/20 1:39 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/16/2020 10:35 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/there-no-war-cops
>>
>> Mac Donald doesn't make *any* fucking case at all.
> 
> More at the Cato piece:
> 
> Let’s start with stop‐​and‐​frisk. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that
> it is permissible for the police to briefly detain a pedestrian for
> questioning if there is “reasonable suspicion” that he might be engaged
> in criminal activity. To proceed from a stop to a frisk of the person’s
> coat or pants, the police must reasonably suspect that the person is
> armed and dangerous.
> 
> In New York City, the number of stops climbed steadily after Rudy
> Giuliani was first elected mayor in 1993, growing from about 150,000 per
> year in the 1990s to 314,000 in 2004. In 2011, the department recorded
> 686,000 stops. Mac Donald believes this tactic “brought great
> improvement in public safety to New York,” and she criticizes the civil
> rights groups that in 2008 challenged the legality of the policy in
> federal court.
> 
> One aspect of the legal challenge alleged racial bias, on the grounds
> that 80 percent of those stopped were black or Hispanic. In response,
> Mac Donald makes a fair point that police stops should not be measured
> against the local population data of racial groups. Even if black men
> constitute, say, 15 percent of a city’s population, it isn’t necessarily
> illegal for black men to constitute, say, 70 percent of the persons
> stopped by police in any given year. If there’s more crime in minority
> neighborhoods, the police can deploy more units there without racist
> intent.
> 
> Unfortunately, Mac Donald ignores the second basis for the legal
> challenge to the New York Police Department’s stop and frisk
> policy—namely, that it systemically violates the constitutional
> guarantee against unreasonable searches. Mac Donald misleadingly
> describes the litigation as a challenge to the department’s practice of
> “stopping, questioning, and sometimes frisking suspicious individuals.”
> That begs the question in dispute. The complaint was that the police had
> been stopping people on the /pretext/ of suspicious behavior.
> 
> In 2013, a federal district court ruled that the NYPD’s tactics were
> unconstitutional. The court noted that cops were evaluated by their
> “productivity”—that is, finding contraband and making arrests. Officers
> were not disciplined for stops that turned up nothing, and innocent
> persons had no practical legal recourse for brief detentions and
> patdowns of their clothing. Thus, the police had job pressures to stop a
> lot of people, suspicious or not, to see what might turn up. That helps
> to explain why, of the 4.4 million police stops between January 2004 and
> June 2012, there was no further action taken, such as an arrest or
> summons, in a whopping 88 percent. Mac Donald does not address these
> points.
> 
> ====================================================================================
> 
> 
> And a phony pretext is *exactly* the issue.  There *WAS* racial
> profiling going on.  The cops had no legitimate reason to stop-and-frisk
> the overwhelming majority of those they stopped, *and* the overwhelming
> majority of them were black and Hispanic.
> 
> It's the systemic racism, stupid.

There are areas where there is more crime than other places and those
areas of high crime should have a higher instance of stop and frisk and
if the crime is reduced then the objective was met whether they turned
up anything or NOT.


The objective isn't to make arrests or find stuff the objective is to
reduce the crime.

If police are stopping to talk with people on a typical patrol and while
talking to them the police see or hear something that makes them
suspicious and to then frisk someone doesn't sound illegal but to
actually set out to STOP people or create a checkpoint of people who're
going about their own business sounds like a violation of the persons
RIGHTS.





-- 
*That's Karma*

*Democrats aren't the PARTY of diversity they're the party of division*