BrendenF11
05-10-2012, 11:49 PM
I am a constitutionalist, my signature says it all. Here is why I will never go to NYC or support any politician, without GREAT other measures, which promotes giving the police, ATF, DEA, etc, which supports any kind of law like this. I have never heard of this law, atleast as far as I can remember, but this seriously irks my twinger.
http://www.silive.com/opinion/danielleddy/index.ssf/2012/05/advance_legal_columnist_the_ny.html
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- The New York City Police Department has been making more arrests and issuing more summonses on Staten Island’s North Shore as a result of individuals being stopped and frisked, an operation that’s drawn sharp criticism from the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and a Staten Island City Council member.
The right of police officers to stop and frisk individuals in appropriate circumstances was established by the United States Supreme Court in 1968 in its landmark decision in Terry v. Ohio.
While some civil libertarians still question the soundness of the court’s ruling, as well as its potential for abuse, the decision makes perfect sense when measured against the exigencies faced by police officers on the beat.
View full size
On Oct. 31, 1963, Cleveland Police Officer Martin McFadden saw two men, Richard Chilton and John Terry, take turns walking past a particular store, looking in its window, and returning to a street corner where they conversed with each other. They did this at least 12 times.
McFadden testified that it seemed as if the two men were casing the store to pull a robbery, and that he feared that they had guns. After approaching them in front of the store and identifying himself, he asked for their names.
When they “mumbled something” in response, McFadden grabbed Terry, spun him around, and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket of Terry’s overcoat, he felt what turned out to be a .38 caliber revolver. A similar pat-down of the outside of Chilton’s overcoat revealed yet another revolver.
Both men sought to bar prosecutors from introducing the guns into evidence on the ground that they were the product of illegal searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court, however, held that the weapons were lawfully seized, declaring that even in instances where a police officer lacks probable cause to arrest an individual, “We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence.”
Therefore, the court continued, “when an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous,” he may properly “conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”
The Terry decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, and drew only one dissent.
RACIAL DISPARITIES
Both the NYCLU and Councilwoman Debi Rose, a Democrat who represents Staten Island’s North Shore, are criticizing the NYPD for stopping and frisking a disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics.
View full size
Last year, 53 percent of those stopped citywide were black, 34 percent were Hispanic, and 9 percent were white.
It is also true, however, that blacks and Hispanics constituted 94 percent of firearms arrestees in 2011. These were individuals from whom at least one firearm was recovered and, as a consequence, faced a dangerous weapon felony charge.
Blacks and Hispanics also constituted 89 percent of those arrested last year citywide for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 88 percent of those arrested for rape, 81 percent for other felony sex crimes and 91 percent for robbery.
It is, of course, never proper for the police to stop an individual solely because of his race or ethnicity. Which is why the racial disparities in the NYPD’s stop and frisk statistics do raise legitimate questions.
They do not, however, compel the conclusion that city police are wrongfully profiling blacks and Hispanics. Among other plausible explanations is that groups that commit violent felonies in disproportionate numbers do, indeed, act suspiciously in similarly disproportionate numbers.
Ms. Rose also asked some odd questions about those stopped and frisked by the police.
“What are they being arrested for?” she wanted to know. “Are they low-level misdemeanor crimes? Possession of a joint?”
Put aside for a moment the fact that, according to Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, stops-and-frisks have turned up over 8,000 weapons, including 819 guns citywide.
If Ms. Rose is suggesting that police ought to walk away from any criminal activity, she needs a reality check.
Her district has by far the highest crime rate on Staten Island. Besides the fact that most criminals cut their teeth on petty crimes, the last thing the career predators need to hear is that anything less than a felony is a free ride.
Ms. Rose’s questions are also irrelevant. The operative factor in stop-and-frisk cases is whether police reasonably believe that the individual is armed and dangerous, not the level of crime that he may or may not be committing.
Also, while she claims that many of her constituents strongly oppose the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policies, the likelihood is that many more support it, even if they are reluctant to do so vocally.
Law-abiding people do not want to cede their communities to criminals.
Stop-and-frisk operations afford police officers meaningful protection while allowing them to do their jobs.
Neither the NYCLU nor Councilwoman Rose has produced any solid reason for the NYPD to curtail their use in its stepped-up initiative against criminal wrongdoing.
Daniel Leddy’s column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page. His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.
I think that the racial issue is BS but it would make sense.
http://www.silive.com/opinion/danielleddy/index.ssf/2012/05/advance_legal_columnist_the_ny.html
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- The New York City Police Department has been making more arrests and issuing more summonses on Staten Island’s North Shore as a result of individuals being stopped and frisked, an operation that’s drawn sharp criticism from the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and a Staten Island City Council member.
The right of police officers to stop and frisk individuals in appropriate circumstances was established by the United States Supreme Court in 1968 in its landmark decision in Terry v. Ohio.
While some civil libertarians still question the soundness of the court’s ruling, as well as its potential for abuse, the decision makes perfect sense when measured against the exigencies faced by police officers on the beat.
View full size
On Oct. 31, 1963, Cleveland Police Officer Martin McFadden saw two men, Richard Chilton and John Terry, take turns walking past a particular store, looking in its window, and returning to a street corner where they conversed with each other. They did this at least 12 times.
McFadden testified that it seemed as if the two men were casing the store to pull a robbery, and that he feared that they had guns. After approaching them in front of the store and identifying himself, he asked for their names.
When they “mumbled something” in response, McFadden grabbed Terry, spun him around, and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket of Terry’s overcoat, he felt what turned out to be a .38 caliber revolver. A similar pat-down of the outside of Chilton’s overcoat revealed yet another revolver.
Both men sought to bar prosecutors from introducing the guns into evidence on the ground that they were the product of illegal searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court, however, held that the weapons were lawfully seized, declaring that even in instances where a police officer lacks probable cause to arrest an individual, “We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence.”
Therefore, the court continued, “when an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous,” he may properly “conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”
The Terry decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, and drew only one dissent.
RACIAL DISPARITIES
Both the NYCLU and Councilwoman Debi Rose, a Democrat who represents Staten Island’s North Shore, are criticizing the NYPD for stopping and frisking a disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics.
View full size
Last year, 53 percent of those stopped citywide were black, 34 percent were Hispanic, and 9 percent were white.
It is also true, however, that blacks and Hispanics constituted 94 percent of firearms arrestees in 2011. These were individuals from whom at least one firearm was recovered and, as a consequence, faced a dangerous weapon felony charge.
Blacks and Hispanics also constituted 89 percent of those arrested last year citywide for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 88 percent of those arrested for rape, 81 percent for other felony sex crimes and 91 percent for robbery.
It is, of course, never proper for the police to stop an individual solely because of his race or ethnicity. Which is why the racial disparities in the NYPD’s stop and frisk statistics do raise legitimate questions.
They do not, however, compel the conclusion that city police are wrongfully profiling blacks and Hispanics. Among other plausible explanations is that groups that commit violent felonies in disproportionate numbers do, indeed, act suspiciously in similarly disproportionate numbers.
Ms. Rose also asked some odd questions about those stopped and frisked by the police.
“What are they being arrested for?” she wanted to know. “Are they low-level misdemeanor crimes? Possession of a joint?”
Put aside for a moment the fact that, according to Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, stops-and-frisks have turned up over 8,000 weapons, including 819 guns citywide.
If Ms. Rose is suggesting that police ought to walk away from any criminal activity, she needs a reality check.
Her district has by far the highest crime rate on Staten Island. Besides the fact that most criminals cut their teeth on petty crimes, the last thing the career predators need to hear is that anything less than a felony is a free ride.
Ms. Rose’s questions are also irrelevant. The operative factor in stop-and-frisk cases is whether police reasonably believe that the individual is armed and dangerous, not the level of crime that he may or may not be committing.
Also, while she claims that many of her constituents strongly oppose the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policies, the likelihood is that many more support it, even if they are reluctant to do so vocally.
Law-abiding people do not want to cede their communities to criminals.
Stop-and-frisk operations afford police officers meaningful protection while allowing them to do their jobs.
Neither the NYCLU nor Councilwoman Rose has produced any solid reason for the NYPD to curtail their use in its stepped-up initiative against criminal wrongdoing.
Daniel Leddy’s column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page. His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.
I think that the racial issue is BS but it would make sense.