YOU don't. Around here, we do. You don't see traffic cops after the second week of the month, ditto with Highway patrol (I live off the belt Parkway) in the summer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some more radical criminologists theorize that black-on-white crime is justified, and that black-on-black crime is just "horizontal violence" because they can't find any white folks to injure.
By "radical" you mean "racist," right? Because saying that one race committing violence against another is okay is part of what got us into the current racial equality mess in the first place.
Plus, saying that it is okay for African Americans to justify whites for crimes is only going to guarantee African Americans never get equality... mainly because it makes one of the most racist comments about African Americans actually look justified. Along with the suggested solutions those racist comments come with. And given some recent conversations I've had, it may not be just the racist whites seeing that as justified. Some hispanics I know are very, very angry with the African American community over the Trayvon Martin case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a legal program with sound legal footing but bad PR) is
Its sound legal footing if they're black. Its a lawsuit if they're white.
Stopping and searching random people and getting it wrong at least 90% of the time cannot in any way, shape, or form be deemed reasonable.
Some more radical criminologists theorize that black-on-white crime is justified, and that black-on-black crime is just "horizontal violence" because they can't find any white folks to injure.By "radical" you mean "racist," right? Because saying that one race committing violence against another is okay is part of what got us into the current racial equality mess in the first place.
Plus, saying that it is okay for African Americans to justify whites for crimes is only going to guarantee African Americans never get equality... mainly because it makes one of the most racist comments about African Americans actually look justified. Along with the suggested solutions those racist comments come with. And given some recent conversations I've had, it may not be just the racist whites seeing that as justified. Some hispanics I know are very, very angry with the African American community over the Trayvon Martin case.
I'm not endorsing that view at all. Just explaining it.
Its sound legal footing if they're black. Its a lawsuit if they're white.
Stopping and searching random people and getting it wrong at least 90% of the time cannot in any way, shape, or form be deemed reasonable.
You seem to have already made up your mind about Stop and Frisk. Stop and Frisk requires articulatable facts (which may include suspicious behavior in a high crime area) that a reasonable person might find suspicious. It's a lower legal standard than probable cause - but it is also not Stop and Arrest. It's not Stop and Search. Having frisked people, talked to them, and discovered probable cause to arrest, I can tell you that there are items that go undiscovered in a frisk that get discovered on a search. All Stop and Frisk actually consists of is the formalized and documented usage of already-existing law enforcement tools. If you can't articulate why someone is acting suspiciously, you can't stop and frisk them. That's the way it works.
YOU don't. Around here, we do. You don't see traffic cops after the second week of the month, ditto with Highway patrol (I live off the belt Parkway) in the summer.
Again, I'm reasonably certain that I spend more times around and with cops than you do. I daresay that I've spent many multiples of time around cops. Telling me that I am ignorant of my own life is kind of silly. I'm not telling you the ins and outs of your profession; please don't lecture me on mine.
--
--
--
All that said, if you want to talk about a lame law enforcement tool that should be greatly curtailed, civil seizure laws are ridiculous as they currently exist. I have no problem seizing items obtained in crime or from the proceeds of crime, but it should have a much higher requirement than currently exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have already made up your mind about Stop and Frisk. Stop and Frisk requires articulatable facts (which may include suspicious behavior in a high crime area) that a reasonable person might find suspicious. It's a lower legal standard than probable cause - but it is also not Stop and Arrest. It's not Stop and Search. Having frisked people, talked to them, and discovered probable cause to arrest, I can tell you that there are items that go undiscovered in a frisk that get discovered on a search. All Stop and Frisk actually consists of is the formalized and documented usage of already-existing law enforcement tools. If you can't articulate why someone is acting suspiciously, you can't stop and frisk them. That's the way it works.
not how it worked when they tried it on me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have already made up your mind about Stop and Frisk.
One tends to do that after reading about it and not seeing anything but flagrantly disingenuous arguments in favor of it. (Its a frisk not a search.. really?)
Stop and Frisk requires articulatable facts (which may include suspicious behavior in a high crime area)
One of the allowed "articulate facts" is "furtive movement"- which is so broad as to include anyone that the cop wants and will invariably include anyone that's gotten stopped before. How on earth do you show that your movements were not "furtive" ?
What is the functional difference between having a check box of mostly subjective, unprovable, undisprovable criteria and anyone I want to search?
that a reasonable person might find suspicious.
If you're wrong more than 90% of the time how reasonable can that judgement be? Do you think you could get a warrant on a 10% chance of finding something... not even the thing you get the warrant for but SOMETHING?
It's a lower legal standard than probable cause -
Then its illegal.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
It doesn't say probable cause or a black guy in a bad neighborhood. No probable cause, no search.
but it is also not Stop and Arrest. It's not Stop and Search.
Someone putting their hands on you is searching you.
The literal meaning of arrest is stop. Unless you can legally and practically keep going you are under arrest. If someone shoves the cop away from them in the course of a stop and frisk they will be charged with resisting arrest. (which they somehow weren't under until they resisted the condition that they.. weren't under)
And thats BEFORE you get to the ubiquitous "yes your honor, i felt that little dime bag with my gloves on, through 3 feet of insulated winter jacket, with cold numbed fingers"
Having frisked people, talked to them, and discovered probable cause to arrest, I can tell you that there are items that go undiscovered in a frisk that get discovered on a search.
By that logic a strip search is not a search because it sometimes misses things that are found in a colonoscopy.
All Stop and Frisk actually consists of is the formalized and documented usage of already-existing law enforcement tools. If you can't articulate why someone is acting suspiciously, you can't stop and frisk them. That's the way it works.
Fortunately there's a handy dandy checklist you can use to make u.. erm.. document your reasons for stopping people.
You seem to have already made up your mind about Stop and Frisk. Stop and Frisk requires articulatable facts (which may include suspicious behavior in a high crime area) that a reasonable person might find suspicious. It's a lower legal standard than probable cause - but it is also not Stop and Arrest. It's not Stop and Search. Having frisked people, talked to them, and discovered probable cause to arrest, I can tell you that there are items that go undiscovered in a frisk that get discovered on a search. All Stop and Frisk actually consists of is the formalized and documented usage of already-existing law enforcement tools. If you can't articulate why someone is acting suspiciously, you can't stop and frisk them. That's the way it works.
That's the way it works in Houston. That's not the way it works everywhere.
And, yes, I have been stopped before by a cop that wanted to frisk me. They couldn't articulate a reason why and just tried to use their authority. They didn't think they needed to.
They found out the hard way that the authority they have doesn't impress everyone.
Some more radical criminologists theorize that black-on-white crime is justified, and that black-on-black crime is just "horizontal violence" because they can't find any white folks to injure.By "radical" you mean "racist," right? Because saying that one race committing violence against another is okay is part of what got us into the current racial equality mess in the first place.
Plus, saying that it is okay for African Americans to justify whites for crimes is only going to guarantee African Americans never get equality... mainly because it makes one of the most racist comments about African Americans actually look justified. Along with the suggested solutions those racist comments come with. And given some recent conversations I've had, it may not be just the racist whites seeing that as justified. Some hispanics I know are very, very angry with the African American community over the Trayvon Martin case.
Can't be racist if the group doesn't have the "power" in society.
For example, my wife was watching a video where a non-english but commonly used word in english (e.g. hors d'oeuvre) was shown. A guy "tried" to say the word and got it wrong each time. Then a woman said the word correctly. I ask her, "So the message here is that guys are stupid?" She smiled slightly, "No not really." I followed up with the observation, "You can't really discriminate against men in favor of women, because at the end of the day the men have the power. If a woman is shown being stupid that is an example of the oppression of women. If a man is shown being stupid that is just making a joke."
You can't really discriminate against men in favor of women, because at the end of the day the men have the power. If a woman is shown being stupid that is an example of the oppression of women. If a man is shown being stupid that is just making a joke."
You're married you SHOULD know that...
You all may want to brush up on your legal standards. Start with Terry v. Ohio. There is a reason that S&F was found legal by every judge it went before until they found an activist judge with sloppy legal reasoning.
That said, S&F should be eliminated as a formal program. Bad PR.
You can't really discriminate against men in favor of women, because at the end of the day the men have the power. If a woman is shown being stupid that is an example of the oppression of women. If a man is shown being stupid that is just making a joke."You're married you SHOULD know that...
Well within the limited context of my marriage the power doesn't rest with me. Not even remotely.
YOU don't. Around here, we do. You don't see traffic cops after the second week of the month, ditto with Highway patrol (I live off the belt Parkway) in the summer.
I'm in upstate NY. Its typically the end of the month that you see obvious speed traps and blanket DUI checks.
Some more radical criminologists theorize that black-on-white crime is justified, and that black-on-black crime is just "horizontal violence" because they can't find any white folks to injure.By "radical" you mean "racist," right? Because saying that one race committing violence against another is okay is part of what got us into the current racial equality mess in the first place.
Plus, saying that it is okay for African Americans to justify whites for crimes is only going to guarantee African Americans never get equality... mainly because it makes one of the most racist comments about African Americans actually look justified. Along with the suggested solutions those racist comments come with. And given some recent conversations I've had, it may not be just the racist whites seeing that as justified. Some hispanics I know are very, very angry with the African American community over the Trayvon Martin case.
Can't be racist if the group doesn't have the "power" in society.
For example, my wife was watching a video where a non-english but commonly used word in english (e.g. hors d'oeuvre) was shown. A guy "tried" to say the word and got it wrong each time. Then a woman said the word correctly. I ask her, "So the message here is that guys are stupid?" She smiled slightly, "No not really." I followed up with the observation, "You can't really discriminate against men in favor of women, because at the end of the day the men have the power. If a woman is shown being stupid that is an example of the oppression of women. If a man is shown being stupid that is just making a joke."
Except, it can be racist, since racism itself does not rely upon being in power to exist. Arguing otherwise only leads to unfortunate implications... after all, some people would point out the current skin color of the President, point out that this makes African Americans as being ones in power, and then use your statement to justify the stance that one can't be racist against African Americans.
Also, in general, a held societal viewpoint among some is that women have power in families... which means you can't discriminate against them, given what you said, because they are among those who have power in society.
So, I kinda have a hard time believing that stance, due in no small part to the fact it doesn't benefit the people who think it would benefit them and is very easily twisted to be used to discriminate against them more.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all may want to brush up on your legal standards. Start with Terry v. Ohio. There is a reason that S&F was found legal by every judge it went before until they found an activist judge with sloppy legal reasoning.
You want to say frisking someone is not searching them but that a judges legal reasoning is sloppy?
That said, S&F should be eliminated as a formal program. Bad PR.
And you wonder why people have a bad opinion of cops. Keep skirting the law, just don't get caught. That's supposed to be the criminals motto.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As i have said before, all criminals should see justice but yes NO amount of banker theft is the same as murder, and for every banker breaking the law there are hundred of street thugs killing or trying topeople can recover financially, talk to me when you can raise the deadSo it's okay to steal?
Is there really no amount of economic devastation that, to you, is equivalent to a single death? Is white collar crime so insignificant to you that literally billions being swindled deserves the same amount of investigation as a single violent death?
See that baffles me.
Data, please.
[Scans thread looking for interesting stuff]
Alright, so it looks like it's mostly just arguing with Citizen R. And some funny Kirth stories!
You know, it's funny, Kirth, how often I also think of Citizen R.
You all may want to brush up on your legal standards. Start with Terry v. Ohio. There is a reason that S&F was found legal by every judge it went before until they found an activist judge with sloppy legal reasoning.
That said, S&F should be eliminated as a formal program. Bad PR.
You want to stop something because of bad pr? Why? And you're really going to have to sell me on the sloppy legal reasoning part, because I've yet to see this done on a white guy, and I live in one of the main areas this policy was aimed towards. IIRC, most people, black and white and Asian, etc, were all for such a policy if it was aimed at everyone equally in theory. But this wasn't, in either theory or practice.
You want to stop something because of bad pr? Why? And you're really going to have to sell me on the sloppy legal reasoning part, because I've yet to see this done on a white guy, and I live in one of the main areas this policy was aimed towards. IIRC, most people, black and white and Asian, etc, were all for such a policy if it was aimed at everyone equally in theory. But this wasn't, in either theory or practice.You all may want to brush up on your legal standards. Start with Terry v. Ohio. There is a reason that S&F was found legal by every judge it went before until they found an activist judge with sloppy legal reasoning.
That said, S&F should be eliminated as a formal program. Bad PR.
I found the issue with the judge who ruled against stop and frisk.
It turns out the judge was removed because of public statements made about the case that brought the judge's impartiality into question. Not because the legal reasoning was unsound. The legal reasoning was later upheld by a federal appelate court and, last month, a federal appeals court.
So, pretty much, it's because a judge couldn't keep their mouth shut that any impropriety was found at all.
I was just curious: does anyone know if NY's Stop-and-Frisk (TM) was challenged before Floyd et al vs. NY? I can't find any indication that it was.
So, Comrade Barrister, if you're out there:
There was a thread a couple of years ago where me and the dearly departed Citizen Aretas got into it over Stop-and-Frisk (TM) and he brought up Terry vs. Ohio. Now, I'm no legal scholar, thank god, but I remember being rather shocked to discover that some people thought that this was the same as this.
Have I been warped by years of communist propaganda? Or are these not at all the same things? Your expert advice, please.
EDIT: Ah, good times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a 'search.' "
Contributor
|
yeah because any given banker is as guilty for a war as a gangbanger that pulls the trigger. You class warfare guys really are getting silly about stretching reality to fit what you want.Excuse me, excuse me...I was just skimming through the thread and I had to butt in here. I see in this post you are responding to Comrade Freehold, Citizen Janus, maybe, I don't know, Citizen Wolf. Hardly the "class warfare guys" around these parts.Yeah. Someone once asked me how best to observe equality of the classes. I gave them directions to a graveyard and told them the only equality that will ever exist between the classes can be found there.
Doesn't mean I don't hold respect for you for what you're trying, though. You might someday succeed. I'll enjoy admitting I'm wrong on that day.
The Potter's Field is hardly equal to Forest Lawn.
You want to stop something because of bad pr? Why? And you're really going to have to sell me on the sloppy legal reasoning part, because I've yet to see this done on a white guy, and I live in one of the main areas this policy was aimed towards. IIRC, most people, black and white and Asian, etc, were all for such a policy if it was aimed at everyone equally in theory. But this wasn't, in either theory or practice.You all may want to brush up on your legal standards. Start with Terry v. Ohio. There is a reason that S&F was found legal by every judge it went before until they found an activist judge with sloppy legal reasoning.
That said, S&F should be eliminated as a formal program. Bad PR.
According to the conservative group New York Civil Liberties Union, about 10% of those stopped and frisked were white. Clearly not proportional to their respective population in the city, but they are stopped on occasion. Doesn't mean that the initiative isn't racist, but merely that just because someone never saw a white person being stopped shouldn't be used as evidence that it never happens. Anecdotal has some value but only to a point.
According to the conservative group New York Civil Liberties Union, about 10% of those stopped and frisked were white. Clearly not proportional to their respective population in the city, but they are stopped on occasion. Doesn't mean that the initiative isn't racist, but merely that just because someone never saw a white person being stopped shouldn't be used as evidence that it never happens. Anecdotal has some value but only to a point.You want to stop something because of bad pr? Why? And you're really going to have to sell me on the sloppy legal reasoning part, because I've yet to see this done on a white guy, and I live in one of the main areas this policy was aimed towards. IIRC, most people, black and white and Asian, etc, were all for such a policy if it was aimed at everyone equally in theory. But this wasn't, in either theory or practice.You all may want to brush up on your legal standards. Start with Terry v. Ohio. There is a reason that S&F was found legal by every judge it went before until they found an activist judge with sloppy legal reasoning.
That said, S&F should be eliminated as a formal program. Bad PR.
Ten percent. Wow.
The Potter's Field is hardly equal to Forest Lawn.yeah because any given banker is as guilty for a war as a gangbanger that pulls the trigger. You class warfare guys really are getting silly about stretching reality to fit what you want.Excuse me, excuse me...I was just skimming through the thread and I had to butt in here. I see in this post you are responding to Comrade Freehold, Citizen Janus, maybe, I don't know, Citizen Wolf. Hardly the "class warfare guys" around these parts.Yeah. Someone once asked me how best to observe equality of the classes. I gave them directions to a graveyard and told them the only equality that will ever exist between the classes can be found there.
Doesn't mean I don't hold respect for you for what you're trying, though. You might someday succeed. I'll enjoy admitting I'm wrong on that day.
Where you bury the body doesn't make it any more or less dead.
It does make it more or less venerated, though . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. Veneration is a thing for the living. The dead don't tend to gain anything out of it.
While me and mine were leading workshops on the Fight for $15, our rivals at the Center for Marxist Education were hosting a talk about The Life of Hubert Harrison
I post it here because the speaker is described as following in the tradition of Ted Allen's The Invention of the White Race whose "white skin privilege" theory was so much better than Peggy McIntosh's "white skin privilege" theory.
And this is one of the big reasons I don't like the term privlidge.
Its not a damned privlidge not to be thrown up against the wall and felt up for no reason its a right. White privlidge sounds like something that should be taken away, black rights (human rights) are something to be extended.
I'd prefer not to wade too deeply into Stop and Frisk, but the racial numbers should look more similiar to racial distribution of criminal activity than raw population - unless you want people stopped for their skin color and not for suspicious behavior.
A frisk is not a search in the probable cause sense, just like a detention is not an arrest. These words have specific legal meanings in criminal justice.
And this is one of the big reasons I don't like the term privlidge.
Its not a damned privlidge not to be thrown up against the wall and felt up for no reason its a right. White privlidge sounds like something that should be taken away, black rights (human rights) are something to be extended.
Citizen Wolf, depending on what the person using the term means, I would quibble with white skin privilege. I am sure, however, that there is no white skin privlidge.
A frisk is not a search in the probable cause sense,
You told us to look at terry vs. Ohio. You need to take your own advice.
just like a detention is not an arrest
It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person.
Again, the chief justice of the united states supreme court, on the constitution you say you swore to uphold, debunking your argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Kirthistan, I'm going to allow my police to shoot people at will. I'll redefine "murder" to not include police, and then make a new legal term, "Lawful Termination," that covers police shootings. Because, in a legal sense, Lawful Termination is not Murder, I can't imagine anyone will have a problem with this policy. Especially if I make sure the non-goblin Lawful Terminations are kept under 10%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, that shiznit ain't funny, Kirth.
Down with Paizo and Pinkskin Privilege!
Gobbo revolution in yo' face!
My argument, so that you don't misstate it, is that there is a legal distinction and a lower legal standard between a detention/frisk (articulable and reasonable suspicion) and an arrest/search (probable cause). I further argue that NYC's Stop and Frisk program is merely a formalized and documented usage of the former rather than a new category.
Warren is referring to it being a search/seizure that is covered by the Fourth Amendment in general. That is, the search/seizure must either be reasonable to not require a warrant or it must require a warrant. I'm talking about the difference between a search incident to arrest or by probable cause, which is considerably more thorough than a frisk.
[Goes to write Citizen K(e)rensky's name on The List, but finds it's already there. Many, many times]
I'd prefer not to wade too deeply into Stop and Frisk, but the racial numbers should look more similiar to racial distribution of criminal activity than raw population - unless you want people stopped for their skin color and not for suspicious behavior.
A frisk is not a search in the probable cause sense, just like a detention is not an arrest. These words have specific legal meanings in criminal justice.
tough, Barcas. You defended snf with a weak caveat regarding public relations (ha!) , you're going to have to break out the galoshes and probably call a plumber and/or a dry cleaner.
Musical Interlude
Pinkskins out!!!
Stream-of-consciousness-wise, if you (or anyone else) can watch a 2-hour movie in Portuguese on your internet-viewing device of choice, I highly recommend this piece of cinematic awesomeness:
Vive Ganga Zumba!
While me and mine were leading workshops on the Fight for $15, our rivals at the Center for Marxist Education were hosting a talk about The Life of Hubert Harrison
[Bumps]
Man, these guys meet in a way cooler pad than us...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A frisk is not a search in the probable cause sense,You told us to look at terry vs. Ohio. You need to take your own advice.
just like a detention is not an arrestIt is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person.
Again, the chief justice of the united states supreme court, on the constitution you say you swore to uphold, debunking your argument.
Not to mention some of the other great quotes like:
In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that 'we must be careful to distinguish that the "frisk" authorized herein includes only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential
and
it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a 'petty indignity.' It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.
This tells me that drugs found from stop and frisk should be inadmissible in most circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My argument, so that you don't misstate it, is that there is a legal distinction and a lower legal standard between a detention/frisk (articulable and reasonable suspicion) and an arrest/search (probable cause). I further argue that NYC's Stop and Frisk program is merely a formalized and documented usage of the former rather than a new category.
Again, horsefeathers.
The point of a terry vs ohio is that when a cop sees someone doing something wrong they can stop them. Having stopped them they can search them in order to avoid getting a bullet to the head. The search is a necessary function of the stop.
Stop and frisk completely reverses that, the entire reason for the stop is to do the search to try to turn up something.
The court gave you an inch and you snagged the entire mile: but it only works against disenfranchised minorities.
Warren is referring to it being a search/seizure that is covered by the Fourth Amendment in general. That is, the search/seizure must either be reasonable
The entire point of the objection to stop and frisk is that the searches are obviously NOT reasonable. They're being done at whim under the flagrantly racist profiling and the cop simply checks off "furtive movement" as an excuse.
If my back worked I might start a business of "rent a white guy" in order to get around town...
I'm talking about the difference between a search incident to arrest or by probable cause, which is considerably more thorough than a frisk.
The police's ability to search is commensurate with evidence of criminal wrongdoing they have. With stop and frisk they have zero evidence of any wrong doing they're just searching people who fit a racial profile.
Regarding drugs found in frisks: the Plain Feel doctrine can trigger a more thorough search by establishing probable cause.
Regarding Terry stops: it does not require probable cause, but rather reasonable suspicion. It does not require seeing someone do something wrong. They are two separate legal standards, just like grand jury and a regular jury use ever-increasing legal standards. The case itself involved the officer stopping a man who was pacing suspiciously. He had committed no crime at that point, but his behavior was reasonably suspicious. Police have the legal ability to investigate suspicious persons or circumstances, so long as they articulate it.
Does Stop and Frisk as a formal program encourage officers to do so when they might normally just keep an eye on the suspicious person? Maybe. Should it be treated with care to ensure that it doesn't go overboard? Definitely. Was it designed as a program of racial discrimination? Absolutely not. Should they drop it, considering the black eye they suffer for its use? Sure. Be careful what you wish for, though. Philadelphia, I believe, had a series of controversies that led to police disengagement - no proactive work, just answering calls for service - in the complaining neighborhoods; this led to an 800% increase in shootings over the following year. Civil liberties and public safety are a fine rope to walk.
Black guy. Must be a criminal. Perfectly reasonable.
The court gave you an inch and you snagged the entire mile: but it only works against disenfranchised minorities.
10% of the people stopped and frisked were white. Please stop saying that it only effects minorities. Are you suggesting those whites that were SaF were not victims of overzealous police action, like the non-whites were?
The court gave you an inch and you snagged the entire mile: but it only works against disenfranchised minorities.10% of the people stopped and frisked were white. Please stop saying that it only effects minorities. Are you suggesting those whites that were SaF were not victims of overzealous police action, like the non-whites were?
If my statement is only 90% true then its nine times more reasonable than anything you're advocating.