Why Can’t We Talk About the Murder Wave?

[Wallet]

Terry v. Ohio, stop & frisk is constitutional. Any method can be abused.

In my opinion, Terry vs Ohio gives too much leeway.

The key phrase in Terry vs Ohio is “reasonable suspicion”. Exactly what is the difference between that and probable cause.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/

Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officer should be allowed to stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate. Unlike probable cause that uses a reasonable person standard, reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer.

My response was that police do not have the right to detain a person without probable cause, and then went on to explain that in the context of detaining people “because they want to”.

To often law enforcement engage civilians because they have the time and are encouraged by their supervisors to make “contacts”. In the course of these, identifications are checked, backgrounds warrant checks are done and the officer visually inspects for any criminal behavior. It’s a numbers game, they know they’ll come across, drugs, people with warrants, etc. Nothing found? You get a warning for a wide turn, tag light out and sent on your way.

I have friends who are cops and have watched this behavior and have been on the receiving end. Now they’ll say it catches bad guys.

It’s wrong.

I will admit there are times when police on patrol see crap and know somethings up. They don’t exactly know what’s going down but they know it’s not right.... these are the times when stop and frisk - stop and find out what the hell is going on is appropriate.

 

[UsualName]

A couple of points:

• it’s more dangerous to be a law enforcement officer in America due to the easy availability of guns everywhere
• the murder “wave” is so high because of the availability of guns

If you want to stop gun violence in America you have to address the point of when a gun leaves the lawful purchase and ownership point to the black market sale point. At some point virtually every gun in America is lawfully produced and/or purchased. Stopping those guns from entering the black market is how to stop the gun violence.

All of this after the fact talk about stop and frisk is is t even necessary or cost effective. It’s just a lazy way of passing the responsibility burden of gun owners to large sections of population. It’s lazy and disingenuous.

 

[ipatent]

the murder “wave” is so high because of the availability of guns

That's not the predominant reason, but one purpose of stop & frisk is to round up illegal firearms. I'm all for cleaning up the black market in firearms, but the criminals in the inner city already have weapons stashed away.

The main reason is a culture/population of disregard for law and order and high impulsivity among young males in the areas where the murder wave is happening. There needs to be hands-on policing.

 

[UsualName]

That's not the predominant reason, but one purpose of stop & frisk is to round up illegal firearms. I'm all for cleaning up the black market in firearms, but the criminals in the inner city already have weapons stashed away.

The main reason is a culture/population of disregard for law and order and high impulsivity among young males in the areas where the murder wave is happening. There needs to be hands-on policing.

You’re totally missing the mark. All you’re advocating for is a perpetual war on illegal firearms instead of just stopping firearms from entering the black market in the first place.

You have no regard for the responsibility and danger you’re putting on law enforcement. You think it’s just east for cops to grab people on the street and Pat them down day after day, after day forever. It’s absurd that you think this is a sustainable strategy.

Let me ask you a question, are you concerned that making gun sellers and buyers legally responsible for the guns they buy is a bridge too far? Are you thinking you’d rather have young people harassed day in and day out for no other reason than the zip code they live in than asking gun sellers and owners to be responsible for their guns?

 

[Tony Stark]

In my opinion, Terry vs Ohio gives too much leeway.

The key phrase in Terry vs Ohio is “reasonable suspicion”. Exactly what is the difference between that and probable cause.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/

Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officer should be allowed to stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate. Unlike probable cause that uses a reasonable person standard, reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer.

My response was that police do not have the right to detain a person without probable cause, and then went on to explain that in the context of detaining people “because they want to”.

To often law enforcement engage civilians because they have the time and are encouraged by their supervisors to make “contacts”. In the course of these, identifications are checked, backgrounds warrant checks are done and the officer visually inspects for any criminal behavior. It’s a numbers game, they know they’ll come across, drugs, people with warrants, etc. Nothing found? You get a warning for a wide turn, tag light out and sent on your way.

I have friends who are cops and have watched this behavior and have been on the receiving end. Now they’ll say it catches bad guys.

It’s wrong.

I will admit there are times when police on patrol see crap and know somethings up. They don’t exactly know what’s going down but they know it’s not right.... these are the times when stop and frisk - stop and find out what the hell is going on is appropriate.

Exactly.If a cop sees a likely drug deal,legit fitting the description of a suspect,clear gun print through their clothes etc than stop ,question and frisk them.NYPD street cops had stop and frisk quotas though so if they didn't see any legit reason stop enough people to meet their quotas they just stopped and frisks enough people for no reason to make their quotas.

 

[ipatent]

You’re totally missing the mark. All you’re advocating for is a perpetual war on illegal firearms instead of just stopping firearms from entering the black market in the first place.

You have no regard for the responsibility and danger you’re putting on law enforcement. You think it’s just east for cops to grab people on the street and Pat them down day after day, after day forever. It’s absurd that you think this is a sustainable strategy.

Let me ask you a question, are you concerned that making gun sellers and buyers legally responsible for the guns they buy is a bridge too far? Are you thinking you’d rather have young people harassed day in and day out for no other reason than the zip code they live in than asking gun sellers and owners to be responsible for their guns?

If a gun is stolen, I'm not going to penalize the victim. If it is intentionally sold into the black market, that's different.

Stop and frisk is used to various degrees throughout America in the battle against high crime. It isn't the police who are complaining. Yes, it should be used the most in high crime areas. For the good of potential victims who live in those areas. We have an emergency in many inner cities.

How many innocent friskees or family members would be dead now if it weren't for the policies?

 

[Tony Stark]

If a gun is stolen, I'm not going to penalize the victim.

I would.If a gun owner knew he faced serious consequences for his gun ending up in a criminals hand he'd do more to protect it.

 

[Wallet]

Exactly.If a cop sees a likely drug deal,legit fitting the description of a suspect,clear gun print through their clothes etc than stop ,question and frisk them.NYPD street cops had stop and frisk quotas though so if they didn't see any legit reason stop enough people to meet their quotas they just stopped and frisks enough people for no reason to make their quotas.


View attachment 274630



View attachment 274631

Yep. Quotas, gotta make sure your doing your job. To be sure, their current training needs overhauling.

I’m all for funding the Police, “Good” Cops working for the community. They need better training, better pay, far better criteria for acceptance and better on the job psychological help and counseling (most suffer from alcoholism, broken marriages, ptsd, let’s face it, the majority of their careers are spent with criminals or victims, basically always on point - it takes a toll)

Using law enforcement as a monetary source for city and state coffers (i.e. civil asset forfeiture, ticket quotas), the militarization of normal street cops are two areas imo that need changing asap.

But we need them and I don’t envy their jobs.

 

[ipatent]

the majority of their careers are spent with criminals or victims - it takes a toll)

It's good that you're sensitive to that, such things are rarely mentioned in the media.

 

[Wallet]

It's good that you're sensitive to that, such things are rarely mentioned in the media.

I know several personally, family and friends, best man at my wedding. I’ve seen both sides, good and bad.