Colin Kaepernick files Collusion Grievence

why do we allow such searches anyway, in anyone's neighborhood?  law-abiding people have to be detained and delayed by police for what?  is any of that making anyone any safer?  Fact is, NYC ended stop-and-frisk, and crime hasn't increased.  It was clearly a wasteful tactic that didn't do anything except hassle people.

I can't believe the courts have decided that random searches, or searches of everyone on a particular street aren't a violation of the 4th Amendment. Sometimes the courts just plain get it wrong.  It's simple common sense that just being in a car on a particular road or walking in a particular neighborhood shouldn't be considered probable cause for a search.

Ok. So putting aside stop and frisk, do you think police should police uniformly across neighborhoods, rather than deploy more resources to higher-crime areas, if those higher-crime areas happen to be largely minority?

sac said:

Smedley said:

So it's not an apples to apples comparison. stop and frisk was unconstitutional but in my opinion, it wasn't racist.  

As I understand it, what was racist about "stop and frisk" was that it was mainly deployed in minority neighborhoods rather than uniformly in all areas.

there's a pilot program in NYC for new methods of neighborhood policing.  

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170406/central-harlem/nypd-neighborhood-policing-nco-community-police-department

Smedley said:

Ok. So putting aside stop and frisk, do you think police should police uniformly across neighborhoods, rather than deploy more resources to higher-crime areas, if those higher-crime areas happen to be largely minority?

sac said:

Smedley said:

So it's not an apples to apples comparison. stop and frisk was unconstitutional but in my opinion, it wasn't racist.  

As I understand it, what was racist about "stop and frisk" was that it was mainly deployed in minority neighborhoods rather than uniformly in all areas.

Cops police the type of crime they are told to police when and where they are told to police it. Cops with lights flashing and traffic cones post up outside bars on SO Avenue in Newark to hand out DUIs and check documents but nobody stakes out the drunks that wobble to their cars on Maplewood or South Orange Avenues.

Law enforcement will never police 'uniformly' across neighborhoods. It's never happened and it never will. Law enforcement works at the behest of those with power. Those with power have always kept close tabs and a short rein on those without power. The unfortunate reality for law abiding citizens in "higher-crime" areas is that they are forced to give up their rights because of skin color, smaller bank balances and perceived class distinctions.

The corralling of Black, Latino and poor white people in ghettos/slums/hoods is a political reality. The lack of resources and options creates a desperate subset of the populace and desperate people cut corners. Law enforcement's responsibility should be to develop the skills to separate this subset from everyone else and then police that subset accordingly- per existing laws. 

So, unless you want to have a much more involved conversation about the politics of poverty in this country and how it relates to the creation and maintenance of second tier citizenship via substandard education, lack of jobs, food deserts, sihtty to nonexistent healthcare, school to prison pipelines and general municipal malfeasance- I'd get off of the 'cops only go where the crime is' bit.

While I agree that no one should have to go through this type of hassle.  However, what are the options to preventing crime and not just responding to it?  Unfortunately there aren't a lot of options.  And stats can be manipulated by chiefs or supervisors to make things look better than they actually are.  How a call, complaint, or stop is recorded can be downplayed by just using different terms.  I am not saying that was the case in NYC with stop and frisk when they ended that tactic. 

ml1 said:

why do we allow such searches anyway, in anyone's neighborhood?  law-abiding people have to be detained and delayed by police for what?  is any of that making anyone any safer?  Fact is, NYC ended stop-and-frisk, and crime hasn't increased.  It was clearly a wasteful tactic that didn't do anything except hassle people.

I can't believe the courts have decided that random searches, or searches of everyone on a particular street aren't a violation of the 4th Amendment. Sometimes the courts just plain get it wrong.  It's simple common sense that just being in a car on a particular road or walking in a particular neighborhood shouldn't be considered probable cause for a search.

I wholeheartedly agree with community policing and it's intents and success.  The program that I mentioned early in which we had paid for an officer to patrol that specific area on Friday and Saturday nights not only patrolled in cars but once we cracked down on the gang issue we had the officer assigned to that detail do community policing in the warmer months by walking the area and engaging in conversations with not only the kids but the adults. 

Two downsides to this type of program, the officer assigned has to want to do it.  Meaning they want to engage with the residents and make a difference and gain the trust of the community and not just do it for the overtime.  A lot of times when the these programs are funded with extra money the senior officers get first shot at it based on union contracts.  The second issue as mentioned in the article is the "I don't want to be a rat" mentality.   There is a lot of that mentality especially in heavy crime neighborhoods.  Some of it is based on them wanting to deal with the problem in their way, and some is fear of retaliation against them.

ml1 said:

there's a pilot program in NYC for new methods of neighborhood policing.  

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170406/central-harlem/nypd-neighborhood-policing-nco-community-police-department

I mentioned on another thread that I ran an open gym program in that same neighborhood.  

I was able to convince the principal at Seth Boyden school to let me open the gym on Wednesday nights for 3-4 hours.  The kids were able to do what they wanted to do as long as they followed a couple of basic rules. Some kids played basketball, others just hung out, girls practiced dance moves, and some kids did homework and we're just looking for some help it.  The police would come by every week, some just made their appearance because they were assigned, while other cops would actually take the time to stop by each group and shoot the breeze or play a little basketball with the kids.  Those were the ones who gained the trust of these kids. I even set up a game for the older kids to play against Mayor Deluca and some of the other TC members and myself.  The kids loved it and thought it was the coolest thing to play against the mayor.

While I was not a cop, the kids looked up to me as if I was.  They felt comfortable enough to come to me with anything on their mind.  Sometimes they would even confide in me who committed a crime in the area knowing that I would not tell the police how I knew or who told me.  This is the type of programs we need more of in Maplewood.

A side story to this - one day one of my kids got in to an argument with another kid.  My son, even at that age had a reputation of being a tough kid so the other kid went and got his older brother and about ten other kids to come after my son.  When I heard the commotion going on I stepped outside to see what was going on.  At that point, one of the kids who happened to be a kid that went to the gym said to the group " what is wrong with you guys, that is Mr. Burbank, the guy who gets us the gym."  And with that they apologized and left.  It showed how much they appreciated that little act that I was doing for them.

This program is what started the idea of YouthNet.  Unfortunately, that program didn't focus enough on what was needed and where it was needed.  In my opinion at least.

we already know what DOESN'T work.  Which is these stop and search tactics.  In NY, 99% of the people stopped and frisked weren't doing anything wrong.  Ninety-nine percent!  In other words, all that time and effort by police accomplished almost nothing.  Virtually ANY other activity on the part of police would have been more useful than what they were doing.  Stop and frisk was only 1% more effective than doing absolutely nothing would have been.

EricBurbank said:

While I agree that no one should have to go through this type of hassle.  However, what are the options to preventing crime and not just responding to it?  

ml1 said:

we already know what DOESN'T work.  Which is these stop and search tactics.  In NY, 99% of the people stopped and frisked weren't doing anything wrong.  Ninety-nine percent!  In other words, all that time and effort by police accomplished almost nothing...

...Except worsening Police-Community relationships even further.  

Not disagreeing completely with you.  Was asking a serious question as to how the police are supposed to be proactive without violating someone's rights?  I don't have the answer.

Eric

In theory the law constrains both civilians and law enforcement. The public is required to live within the letter of the law and the police are required to follow rules and regulations with regard to how they enforce the law.  Here's the non lawyer definition from my activist days. Basically, part of being 'proactive' requires law enforcement to have what's called "reasonable suspicion" prior to effecting a traffic stop or detaining someone prior to an arrest.  After reasonable suspicion has been established cops can detain and question. In order for the interaction to go further, "probable cause" must be established. Probable cause is derived from the 4th amendment and is met when facts and circumstances warrant further action like an arrest- and not simply when officers have a 'feeling' or a 'hunch'.

So, as you can see, if you live in an environment where your nationality or religion (Mexican, Muslim or anyone deemed to be non American) provides 'reasonable suspicion' for law enforcement you might be detained.  Same thing for environments where your skin color meets the standard for "reasonable suspicion".

First, I find it hard to believe you were an activist. Lol. Had to throw a little humor in this thread since we have been so heated at times.

Second, I know what is required in theory but in reality neither of them happen all the time.

Thirdly, I think the probable cause and reasonably suspicion is where the problems come in.  The term reasonable suspicion is what I think is too ambiguous and is what leads to so many people feeling like their rights have been violated, And may be they were.   And I am not so quick to throw out hunches and feelings as long as they are not based on race.  A good cop can often have a hunch just by watching someone.

Lastly, believe it or not, I do get and see what you are saying in the last paragraph.  I have seen it happen.  But on the other hand, you also hear of people who see something that looks suspicious but because of the environment we live in, don't say anything out of fear of what will be judged as racist or right winged reactions.  

Btw, this is the conversation that needs to take place in this country if we stand a shot at fixing the problem.  Not one side saying they are always right and the other wrong.