Jump to content

"Group of eight women stab Manhattan subway rider after he makes wisecrack"


tvega961

Recommended Posts

It's pretty well known. In fact that's the whole premises around Stop & Frisk... I don't know where you've been...?? :huh:

 

No, he wants evidence that the police are actually stopping people who are suspicious, and not just random black people.

 

What I mean is that I want evidence that police officers can stop people just because they have a "general hunch" that something's suspicious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What I mean is that I want evidence that police officers can stop people just because they have a "general hunch" that something's suspicious.

 

 

LOL... What sort of evidence do you want? I think you have a hard time comprehending. I mean seriously, if cops couldn't just stop people because of a general hunch, they wouldn't have thwarted all of these terrorist plots for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is that I want evidence that police officers can stop people just because they have a "general hunch" that something's suspicious.

 

I'm sorry to say this dude, but you're asking us to read cops' minds now. And last time I checked, WE CAN'T. I will say that I don't have a high sentiment in cops, simply because of all the negative stories about abuse of power and irresponsibility, HOWEVER, that is not so say that there aren't professional cops. I will even venture to say that they may make up the majority of cops, but of course, we never hear about those; we always hear about the ones who make mistakes and tarnish the name of law enforcement. That's just a sad fact of the society we live in. We look to accuse; we are quick to allocate blame and point out faults in the system. But when something goes right, we conveniently ignore it in our never ending search for more wrong and more flaws in the system and in individual jacka$$s.

 

Point is, even though not every stop and frisk is made with the best judgment, we as the general public can't do anymore than to respect the judgment being used. And if perhaps it is blatantly evident that there is an error in judgment or abuse of power, then it is our responsibility to obtain enough evidence to prove that it WAS an error or abuse, and then report it. Otherwise, the only thing that is going to come out of this is more bickering and complaining about how the system (which works, but not in the best way) sucks and needs to be fixed, without a way to fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... What sort of evidence do you want? I think you have a hard time comprehending. I mean seriously, if cops couldn't just stop people because of a general hunch, they wouldn't have thwarted all of these terrorist plots for example.

 

Who says that cops and their procedures always follow the law? I didn't say that cops don't stop people based on a general hunch; I said that the law states that they shouldn't.

 

I'll repeat myself since you "have a hard time comprehending" what I said: I provided evidence (the article) explaining that cops need reasonable suspicion to conduct a legal stop and frisk. You seem to think, though, that they can conduct a legal stop and frisk under any circumstances if a person generally "looks suspicious". That's what I'm asking for evidence to support. Maybe it seems obvious to you that cops should be allowed to entirely use their own judgement, but my evidence shows that it's not always legal for them to do so.

 

I'm sorry to say this dude, but you're asking us to read cops' minds now. And last time I checked, WE CAN'T. I will say that I don't have a high sentiment in cops, simply because of all the negative stories about abuse of power and irresponsibility, HOWEVER, that is not so say that there aren't professional cops. I will even venture to say that they may make up the majority of cops, but of course, we never hear about those; we always hear about the ones who make mistakes and tarnish the name of law enforcement. That's just a sad fact of the society we live in. We look to accuse; we are quick to allocate blame and point out faults in the system. But when something goes right, we conveniently ignore it in our never ending search for more wrong and more flaws in the system and in individual jacka$$s.

 

Point is, even though not every stop and frisk is made with the best judgment, we as the general public can't do anymore than to respect the judgment being used. And if perhaps it is blatantly evident that there is an error in judgment or abuse of power, then it is our responsibility to obtain enough evidence to prove that it WAS an error or abuse, and then report it. Otherwise, the only thing that is going to come out of this is more bickering and complaining about how the system (which works, but not in the best way) sucks and needs to be fixed, without a way to fix it.

 

I never said that cops are bad people, and I'm not saying that they necessarily abuse their power. But I am saying that they follow an illegal procedure when they stop and frisk someone without being able to explain a specific reason for it. Via Garibaldi 8 thinks it's perfectly legal, which is what I'm arguing about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says that cops and their procedures always follow the law? I didn't say that cops don't stop people based on a general hunch; I said that the law states that they shouldn't.

 

I'll repeat myself since you "have a hard time comprehending" what I said: I provided evidence (the article) explaining that cops need reasonable suspicion to conduct a legal stop and frisk. You seem to think, though, that they can conduct a legal stop and frisk under any circumstances if a person generally "looks suspicious". That's what I'm asking for evidence to support. Maybe it seems obvious to you that cops should be allowed to entirely use their own judgement, but my evidence shows that it's not always legal for them to do so.

 

I never said that cops are bad people, and I'm not saying that they necessarily abuse their power. But I am saying that they follow an illegal procedure when they stop and frisk someone without being able to explain a specific reason for it. Via Garibaldi 8 thinks it's perfectly legal, which is what I'm arguing about.

 

 

Well if it's SO illegal, explain why Mayor Bloomberg and many other politicians support it, including ones that previously were against it??? Also you're assuming that cops don't have reasonable suspicion apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if it's SO illegal, explain why Mayor Bloomberg and many other politicians support it???

 

Stop dodging the question and answer why YOU think it's legal, which you have never explained. Politicians support the general idea of stop and frisk, which is legal. I support it, too. But cops have certain laws to follow when performing a stop and frisk, and those laws often get broken. You don't seem to accept that the laws even exist. Maybe you won't except the laws because you're so afraid of "thugs" penetrating your neighborhood that you just want the police to stop and frisk as many people as possible...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says that cops and their procedures always follow the law? I didn't say that cops don't stop people based on a general hunch; I said that the law states that they shouldn't.

 

I'll repeat myself since you "have a hard time comprehending" what I said: I provided evidence (the article) explaining that cops need reasonable suspicion to conduct a legal stop and frisk. You seem to think, though, that they can conduct a legal stop and frisk under any circumstances if a person generally "looks suspicious". That's what I'm asking for evidence to support. Maybe it seems obvious to you that cops should be allowed to entirely use their own judgement, but my evidence shows that it's not always legal for them to do so.

 

I never said that cops are bad people, and I'm not saying that they necessarily abuse their power. But I am saying that they follow an illegal procedure when they stop and frisk someone without being able to explain a specific reason for it. Via Garibaldi 8 thinks it's perfectly legal, which is what I'm arguing about.

 

 

Well, it seems to me that you're addressing one of those grey areas. What constitutes reasonable suspicion? You tell me what YOUR definition is, because I will say that there are several, if not many. I will admit that sometimes, when I'm nervous walking through an uncanny neighborhood, my stance would constitute reasonable suspicion in the eyes of some. Is that wrong? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Would I complain if I was stopped and frisked? IF the officer was reasonable with me and treated me with respect and dignity, then sure, in the name of security, I wouldn't mind.

 

The point you're arguing here is kind of moot, considering there is no set in stone, explicit definition of "reasonable suspicion." So unless some higher power with authority decides to outline those terms in the near future, this debate will go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop dodging the question and answer why YOU think it's legal, which you have never explained. Politicians support the general idea of stop and frisk, which is legal. I support it, too. But cops have certain laws to follow when performing a stop and frisk, and those laws often get broken. You don't seem to accept that the laws even exist. Maybe you won't except the laws because you're so afraid of "thugs" penetrating your neighborhood that you just want the police to stop and frisk as many people as possible...

 

 

I don't need to answer why I think it is legal because it IS legal. In your response you stated that cops have to follow certain laws when performing stop & frisk and who is to say that they aren't? One minute you claim you support Stop & Frisk and the next you go on and on about how illegal it is. Make up your mind already. <_<

 

 

Well, it seems to me that you're addressing one of those grey areas. What constitutes reasonable suspicion? You tell me what YOUR definition is, because I will say that there are several, if not many. I will admit that sometimes, when I'm nervous walking through an uncanny neighborhood, my stance would constitute reasonable suspicion in the eyes of some. Is that wrong? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Would I complain if I was stopped and frisked? IF the officer was reasonable with me and treated me with respect and dignity, then sure, in the name of security, I wouldn't mind.

 

The point you're arguing here is kind of moot, considering there is no set in stone, explicit definition of "reasonable suspicion." So unless some higher power with authority decides to outline those terms in the near future, this debate will go nowhere.

 

 

That's exactly the point... There is NOTHING set in stone as to what is "suspicious".

 

The other issue seems to be the individuals themselves... Why would you be nervous if you're not doing anything wrong? That's what I don't get... :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the point... There is NOTHING set in stone as to what is "suspicious".

 

 

To add on to this, since there is no set definition of what is suspicious, people will base their definitions off of pre-existing prejudices, and/or stereotypes. This is obviously an improper method of determining reasonable suspicion, but now you're dealing with the way people have been preconditioned by society and events around them to deal with other people. It's a matter of psyche, and unless some mad scientist discovers a way to manipulate brain waves to the extent where you can control how someone thinks and feels about something else, then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

It's unfortunate, but because of the disproportionate amount of crime committed by minority groups, and the clear evidence of pre-existing racism, and also lack of quality parenting, the only way to fix the "racial profiling" issue in stop and frisk is for parents and other members of those targeted minorities to take responsibility and raise their next generations the proper way, instead of complaining how wrong the system is and ignoring the root of the problem, because nothing ever gets fixed by ignoring roots of problems. The only thing that happens is that the issue gets swept under the rug and continues to boil until it explodes / erupts later on in another incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue seems to be the individuals themselves... Why would you be nervous if you're not doing anything wrong? That's what I don't get... :huh:

 

 

As for me, my nervousness only stems from the fact that I don't live in those areas, ie, Harlem, and when I walk through them to get from one mode of transport to another, it is only natural for me to be slightly nervous because of Harlem's reputation for "not harboring the nicest people." Not to say people in Harlem aren't nice, but there is certainly a reputation for crime in that sector of the city. I doubt anyone will disagree with me on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add on to this, since there is no set definition of what is suspicious, people will base their definitions off of pre-existing prejudices, and/or stereotypes. This is obviously an improper method of determining reasonable suspicion, but now you're dealing with the way people have been preconditioned by society and events around them to deal with other people. It's a matter of psyche, and unless some mad scientist discovers a way to manipulate brain waves to the extent where you can control how someone thinks and feels about something else, then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

It's unfortunate, but because of the disproportionate amount of crime committed by minority groups, and the clear evidence of pre-existing racism, and also lack of quality parenting, the only way to fix the "racial profiling" issue in stop and frisk is for parents and other members of those targeted minorities to take responsibility and raise their next generations the proper way, instead of complaining how wrong the system is and ignoring the root of the problem, because nothing ever gets fixed by ignoring roots of problems. The only thing that happens is that the issue gets swept under the rug and continues to boil until it explodes / erupts later on in another incident.

 

 

And that is EXACTLY what I've been arguing the entire time and the last time that this came up. There is really no way to avoid that. Like you said... If it is known that certain types of individuals are committing crimes, those are the people you're going to target. Like with the white guy that was groping women... The cops had to look for well dressed white men that fit the description involved and yes they wrongfully arrested a guy, but they eventually got the right guy. I don't see why it should be any different in any other situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for me, my nervousness only stems from the fact that I don't live in those areas, ie, Harlem, and when I walk through them to get from one mode of transport to another, it is only natural for me to be slightly nervous because of Harlem's reputation for "not harboring the nicest people." Not to say people in Harlem aren't nice, but there is certainly a reputation for crime in that sector of the city. I doubt anyone will disagree with me on that.

 

 

I'll go a step further and say that I personally have never and will never walk, ride the bus, or take the subway through Harlem, unless I'm going to a Yankee game. I'm fine with driving through there in my car though. This isn't because of any racism thoughts going through my head (even though I'm pretty sure whites are the dominant race in Harlem now anyways), but because Harlem has a reputation as a dangerous crime filled neighborhood. And please, don't give me that "crime can happen anywhere" bullshit, because as much as you might not want to admit it, there are certain sections of the city that are notorious for crime.

 

I'm sure that the majority of people living in neighborhoods that are notorious for crime are perfect law abiding citizens, but it only takes a small percentage of the population to ruin it for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for me, my nervousness only stems from the fact that I don't live in those areas, ie, Harlem, and when I walk through them to get from one mode of transport to another, it is only natural for me to be slightly nervous because of Harlem's reputation for "not harboring the nicest people." Not to say people in Harlem aren't nice, but there is certainly a reputation for crime in that sector of the city. I doubt anyone will disagree with me on that.

 

 

I certainly understand. When I had to speak at a school in Bushwick/Bedford-Stuyvesant, I was on guard as well. There was a cop at the train station that clearly sensed that I didn't belong in that neck of the woods. I didn't look suspicious, but it was clear that I was there conducting business of some sort. I mean cops are humans and they must use their instincts to go about doing their job to a degree. There is no way around that.

 

 

I'll go a step further and say that I personally have never and will never walk, ride the bus, or take the subway through Harlem, unless I'm going to a Yankee game. I'm fine with driving through there in my car though. This isn't because of any racism thoughts going through my head (even though I'm pretty sure whites are the dominant race in Harlem now anyways), but because Harlem has a reputation as a dangerous crime filled neighborhood. And please, don't give me that "crime can happen anywhere" bullshit, because as much as you might not want to admit it, there are certain sections of the city that are notorious for crime.

 

I'm sure that the majority of people living in neighborhoods that are notorious for crime are perfect law abiding citizens, but it only takes a small percentage of the population to ruin it for everyone else.

 

 

Exactly... It's all about what you're exposed to. I mean I've lived in New York all of my life and it was a bit of culture shock for me when I first went through Harlem and through the Bronx to get to Riverdale. I wasn't used to seeing so many housing projects in clusters like that so I had to get used to it. For those who are from the "hood" so to speak it is normal, but for folks who aren't it isn't normal and you have to adjust. You don't put yourself in harms way for no good reason. I also don't venture in any area that I know is bad unless I have to and I have only passed through Harlem. I think I've been to Spanish Harlem years ago with a friend at the border where the Upper East Side ends and even then I was concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't this man move into another subway car if these girls were so loud? Chances are he wouldn't have been noticed and these females would of had fun with a whole car to themselves if anyone else moved as well.

 

So normal people should have to put up with the antics of these savages?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to answer why I think it is legal because it IS legal.

For god's sake, I just explained why I consider it illegal under the circumstances which you think it should be used.
One minute you claim you support Stop & Frisk and the next you go on and on about how illegal it is. Make up your mind already. <_<
You read what I said, and if you forgot, you can read it again. If you selectively read the part that proves your point (that I'm an idiot), then I don't know what to tell you. <_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<

 

I said that stop and frisk is legal in general (which is why politicians can support it), but there are COMMONLY BROKEN laws governing it. Therefore, stop and frisk in practice is illegal.

 

The point you're arguing here is kind of moot, considering there is no set in stone, explicit definition of "reasonable suspicion." So unless some higher power with authority decides to outline those terms in the near future, this debate will go nowhere.

 

Here's the definition of reasonable suspicion that I'm using, which I got from the same website as the definition of legal stop and frisk.
A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.
You guys can make your decision about what falls into that category. But there are certain things that I believe do not fall into this category. For example, so many non-criminals "dress like thugs" nowadays that I don't believe that "a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been committed" based on that. Remember, stop and frisks are designed to stop people who specifically have committed a crime, not just "thugs" or "bad people" in general. Yes, "thugs" have probably committed some sort of crime in their lives, but that isn't enough to warrant a stop and frisk according to this.

 

Yes, it's a gray area open to a certain level of interpretation, but there have been cases where cops don't even go as far as to explain what the suspect did wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the definition of reasonable suspicion that I'm using, which I got from the same website as the definition of legal stop and frisk.

You guys can make your decision about what falls into that category. But there are certain things that I believe do not fall into this category. For example, so many non-criminals "dress like thugs" nowadays that I don't believe that "a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been committed" based on that. Remember, stop and frisks are designed to stop people who specifically have committed a crime, not just "thugs" or "bad people" in general. Yes, "thugs" have probably committed some sort of crime in their lives, but that isn't enough to warrant a stop and frisk according to this.

 

 

Yes, but Stop & Frisk is also there to PREVENT crimes from happening not just for folks who have committed a crime. That's what you seem to be overlooking. Furthermore, as Fan Railer stated, there is nothing set in stone as to what is reasonably suspicious and it doesn't help if folks are dressing like thugs that's for sure. It's like dressing like a robber and then saying Oh, even though that guy is dressed as if he is going to rob a store, he shouldn't be seen as suspicious. That's ridiculous!

 

Oh and the other thing is that there is flexibility with some laws, which apparently you're not aware of. These laws were created to protect the general public so some flexibility is granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For god's sake, I just explained why I consider it illegal under the circumstances which you think it should be used.You read what I said, and if you forgot, you can read it again. If you selectively read the part that proves your point (that I'm an idiot), then I don't know what to tell you. <_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<<_<

 

I said that stop and frisk is legal in general (which is why politicians can support it), but there are COMMONLY BROKEN laws governing it. Therefore, stop and frisk in practice is illegal.

 

Here's the definition of reasonable suspicion that I'm using, which I got from the same website as the definition of legal stop and frisk.

You guys can make your decision about what falls into that category. But there are certain things that I believe do not fall into this category. For example, so many non-criminals "dress like thugs" nowadays that I don't believe that "a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been committed" based on that. Remember, stop and frisks are designed to stop people who specifically have committed a crime, not just "thugs" or "bad people" in general. Yes, "thugs" have probably committed some sort of crime in their lives, but that isn't enough to warrant a stop and frisk according to this.

 

Yes, it's a gray area open to a certain level of interpretation, but there have been cases where cops don't even go as far as to explain what the suspect did wrong.

 

I don't want to disagree with you, but I based all of my previous responses on that definition, which you so conveniently quoted in your reply. There is NOTHING specific outlined in this sentence:

A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

Which leaves it up to full interpretation based on who's reading it. "Specific and articulable facts?" WHAT facts? Since the definition is so loosely written, anything can be judged as reasonably suspicious. I could be running full speed ( I do track, so I'm reasonably fast) down the street trying to make the next train or bus and that could be reasonably suspicious. Perhaps I look like I just committed a theft and am making a quick getaway from the crime scene. Does that mean I committed a crime? NO, because I'm just an average person trying to catch a bus or a train. If I was black (I'm asian) it would be even MORE suspicious, simply because of my skin color and the not so nice reputation that African American criminals have garnered for their community.

 

So to be honest, I still don't think you're making a very convincing argument to your points here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So normal people should have to put up with the antics of these savages?

 

Yes, if they don't want to end up in harm's way. Besides by moving into another car he wouldn't have to deal with the behavior of these ladies who I believe were affiliated with some kind of street gang.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, hope those girls like being someone else's bitch. Let's see how long they'll be smiling then...

 

The problem these days is kids have no respect for elders due to either no parents or lack of discipline and lack of education. Schools for them are more a social hangout than a place for learning.

 

I agree with most of you here about the guy should've minded his own business, but with the way some of those 'kids' act, they should've gotten the belt in the old days. But because they are in large groups and have no fear, they are more dangerous and think they can do whatever the hell they want. Kids should not be allowed to be in large groups unsupervised and we need MORE cops around. Post them in the troubled areas of the system like checkpoints and that can help keep the scum like those girls off the trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to disagree with you, but I based all of my previous responses on that definition, which you so conveniently quoted in your reply. There is NOTHING specific outlined in this sentence:

I realize that I misled you into thinking that something was written into that definition which wasn't actually written. I'm sorry.

 

I understand what you guys are saying, that the idea of "reasonable person" is subject to interpretation. My interpretation may certainly be different from somebody else's. Still, we have to draw the line somewhere, and we can't just say that anything could qualify as "reasonable suspicion" because someone could interpret it that way.

 

Maybe I'm just wrong, and stop and frisk is always legal because reasonable suspicion is so vague. I guess my viewpoint comes from the fact that I consider myself a reasonable person and when I see a guy "dressed like a thug" for example, I think, "That person is more likely to be a criminal than someone else," but not "I suspect that the person has committed or will commit a crime."

 

I found this text (from the same website) helpful, although maybe that's just because it supports my point :lol: :

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878). [n23] And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.

Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that I misled you into thinking that something was written into that definition which wasn't actually written. I'm sorry.

 

I understand what you guys are saying, that the idea of "reasonable person" is subject to interpretation. My interpretation may certainly be different from somebody else's. Still, we have to draw the line somewhere, and we can't just say that anything could qualify as "reasonable suspicion" because someone could interpret it that way.

 

Maybe I'm just wrong, and stop and frisk is always legal because reasonable suspicion is so vague. I guess my viewpoint comes from the fact that I consider myself a reasonable person and when I see a guy "dressed like a thug" for example, I think, "That person is more likely to be a criminal than someone else," but not "I suspect that the person has committed or will commit a crime."

 

I found this text (from the same website) helpful, although maybe that's just because it supports my point :lol: :

 

http://www.law.corne.../stop_and_frisk

 

 

Yeah but you see that's the thing... You really have nothing to go off of with suspicion but perceptions... I still say that if one doesn't want to be looked at a certain way then you don't portray yourself in that light. That's why most Stop & Frisks happen IMO. And this nonsense about individuals not knowing who are they dressing like... Please... That is biggest load of crappola... If they don't know then that shows a big problem right there in the communities being targeted. Many of the communities up in arms do very little to change what "the image" is that should be followed and when politicians have spoken out against following said image instead of being praised, they get slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.