3 ms·

No. The big question is whether we want cops to be "randomly" stopping and frisking any people regardless of race/location. The idea that armed people are all

No. The big question is whether we want cops to be "randomly" stopping and frisking any people regardless of race/location. The idea that armed people are allowed to just accost people on the street to conduct cursory searches seems incompatible with basic liberties. It is a stone's throw from the "papers please" interaction that so many Americans loath. (I was about to say uniformed, but cops don't always wear uniforms these days.)

dmoy 3y ago
Yea my apologies, my statement was ambiguously two-parted Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional due to general shitting on the 4th amendment. Separately, the federal government still claims that it's disproportionately targeting minorities (and that it's still occurring generally). My vague recollection of the decade-ago ruling was that it didn't have any 14th amendment or w/e statements
zo1 3y ago
No. The big question is whether we want to live in a society that requires the police to randomly stop and frisk people in order to stop crime. There is crime, I don't think anyone can dispute that. Honestly, I personally have no problem with criminal-looking individuals being stopped and frisked in high-crime areas. And I say this as someone that's been profiled as a white person in a black country, and held at gunpoint by assault-rifle wielding police.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  And if stop-and-frisk is extended to vehicles? Would America tolerate cops randomly pulling over cars that looked "criminal"? Or we could take it a step further and just randomly search homes.
  - banannaise 3y ago
    > Would America tolerate cops randomly pulling over cars that looked "criminal"? Sadly, it already does. The pretext stop is a core element of highway patrol, and policing in general.
  - j33zusjuice 3y ago
    Sure, it could be a slippery slope, but the problem is that no one can strictly define what “criminal-looking” means. That term is often used synonymously with “urban style,” which means “black people, and others who dress like black people.” If stop and frisk were started in the rural south and had this loose “criminal-looking” definition applied to it, all those MFers would get stopped every day for being skinny, having shitty teeth, etc. The point being that criminals look exactly like normal, non-criminal people.
    - Incipient 3y ago
      But can't you define everything as a slippery slope? If we allow cops to arrest people for discharging a firearm in public, next they'll arrest people for simply pulling a gun in public...then eventually just having a gun in public!
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  Strictly define criminal-looking.

dmoy 3y ago

Yea my apologies, my statement was ambiguously two-parted Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional due to general shitting on the 4th amendment. Separately, the federal government still claims that it's disproportionately targeting minorities (and that it's still occurring generally). My vague recollection of the decade-ago ruling was that it didn't have any 14th amendment or w/e statements

zo1 3y ago

No. The big question is whether we want to live in a society that requires the police to randomly stop and frisk people in order to stop crime. There is crime, I don't think anyone can dispute that. Honestly, I personally have no problem with criminal-looking individuals being stopped and frisked in high-crime areas. And I say this as someone that's been profiled as a white person in a black country, and held at gunpoint by assault-rifle wielding police.

sandworm101 3y ago
And if stop-and-frisk is extended to vehicles? Would America tolerate cops randomly pulling over cars that looked "criminal"? Or we could take it a step further and just randomly search homes.
- banannaise 3y ago
  > Would America tolerate cops randomly pulling over cars that looked "criminal"? Sadly, it already does. The pretext stop is a core element of highway patrol, and policing in general.
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  Sure, it could be a slippery slope, but the problem is that no one can strictly define what “criminal-looking” means. That term is often used synonymously with “urban style,” which means “black people, and others who dress like black people.” If stop and frisk were started in the rural south and had this loose “criminal-looking” definition applied to it, all those MFers would get stopped every day for being skinny, having shitty teeth, etc. The point being that criminals look exactly like normal, non-criminal people.
  - Incipient 3y ago
    But can't you define everything as a slippery slope? If we allow cops to arrest people for discharging a firearm in public, next they'll arrest people for simply pulling a gun in public...then eventually just having a gun in public!
j33zusjuice 3y ago
Strictly define criminal-looking.