4 ms·

"Stop and Frisk" has been the defacto policy in low-income areas for as long as I can remember. On Chicago's South Side (where I grew up) many young black male

by zupreme 14y ago

"Stop and Frisk" has been the defacto policy in low-income areas for as long as I can remember. On Chicago's South Side (where I grew up) many young black males walking or driving could expect to be stopped and searched one or more times per week, in some areas. For those who have never lived what I'm talking about you might doubt it exists, but it's real and it's in your backyard. I'm glad that activists are taking up the cause. It's long overdue.

chimeracoder 14y ago
> but it's real and it's in your backyard. Unless you're white and live in a predominantly white, upper-class neighborhood in NYC, in which case it's in someone else's backyard. Which is the entire problem. If NYPD tried that around Carnegie Hill, you bet the practice would stop instantly. But it's in East New York, etc., so the right people don't care. New York has a ridiculous number of stop-and-frisks, but they're so unevenly distributed that some neighborhoods have more stop and frisks annually as they have people - ie, on average, each person is stopped and frisked more than once per year. (Sidenote: It's not a matter of changing the law: stop and frisks, as they are practiced, are already illegal by law. The problem is that the victims rarely take the issue to court, for obvious reasons, and so NYPD has no reason to stop.)
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  stop and frisks, as they are practiced, are already illegal by law If that is the case, how can anything found in those frisks be admitted as evidence in court? If the search is illegal, anything found would be poisoned and therefore inadmissible. Or do the people being stopped never actually fight any charges being brought against them (understandable, given whom the PD targets)? Regardless, it is a disgusting practice that needs to be stopped. Along with all the other practices of our para-militarized police departments.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    > Or do the people being stopped never actually fight any charges being brought against them (understandable, given whom the PD targets)? For those who aren't found to be in possession of drugs (the main excuse here), that's exactly the problem. For the rest: > If that is the case, how can anything found in those frisks be admitted as evidence in court? They're only legal if the police have reasonable suspicion[1] of illegal weapons. Not drugs. Not prostitution[2]. Just weapons. Of course, given the neighborhoods they target, it's easy for them to fabricate an excuse after-the-fact. So most people don't bother to challenge it, because they know it's, at best, a case of one person's word against the other. [1] It may be probable cause instead; I'm fuzzy on the details, but I know the general idea is correct. [2] In New York, having many condoms in your possession is evidence enough to charge you with prostitution.

by zupreme 14y ago

chimeracoder 14y ago

> but it's real and it's in your backyard. Unless you're white and live in a predominantly white, upper-class neighborhood in NYC, in which case it's in someone else's backyard. Which is the entire problem. If NYPD tried that around Carnegie Hill, you bet the practice would stop instantly. But it's in East New York, etc., so the right people don't care. New York has a ridiculous number of stop-and-frisks, but they're so unevenly distributed that some neighborhoods have more stop and frisks annually as they have people - ie, on average, each person is stopped and frisked more than once per year. (Sidenote: It's not a matter of changing the law: stop and frisks, as they are practiced, are already illegal by law. The problem is that the victims rarely take the issue to court, for obvious reasons, and so NYPD has no reason to stop.)

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
stop and frisks, as they are practiced, are already illegal by law If that is the case, how can anything found in those frisks be admitted as evidence in court? If the search is illegal, anything found would be poisoned and therefore inadmissible. Or do the people being stopped never actually fight any charges being brought against them (understandable, given whom the PD targets)? Regardless, it is a disgusting practice that needs to be stopped. Along with all the other practices of our para-militarized police departments.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > Or do the people being stopped never actually fight any charges being brought against them (understandable, given whom the PD targets)? For those who aren't found to be in possession of drugs (the main excuse here), that's exactly the problem. For the rest: > If that is the case, how can anything found in those frisks be admitted as evidence in court? They're only legal if the police have reasonable suspicion[1] of illegal weapons. Not drugs. Not prostitution[2]. Just weapons. Of course, given the neighborhoods they target, it's easy for them to fabricate an excuse after-the-fact. So most people don't bother to challenge it, because they know it's, at best, a case of one person's word against the other. [1] It may be probable cause instead; I'm fuzzy on the details, but I know the general idea is correct. [2] In New York, having many condoms in your possession is evidence enough to charge you with prostitution.