Ban on “Stop and Frisk” Leads to Murder of 1-Year-Old

Antiq-Hennis-shot-dead-1-year-old-boy

The murder of Antiq Henis, a 1 year old boy shot in his stroller in Brownsville, Brooklyn, by an assailant in a likely act of gang violence targeting his father is exactly the kind of crime that Stop and Frisk was meant to prevent.

In 2010, the New York Times described 52,000 police Stop and Frisk stops being made in Brownsville.

This small army of officers, night after night, spends much of its energy pursuing the controversial Police Department tactic known as “Stop, Question, Frisk,” and it does so at a rate unmatched anywhere else in the city.

On the inner streets, dozens of officers, many fresh out of the police academy, walk in pairs or linger on corners. Others, deeper within the urban grid, navigate a maze of public housing complexes, patrolling the stairwells and hallways.

Between January 2006 and March 2010, the police made nearly 52,000 stops on these blocks and in these buildings.

When night falls, police officers blanket some eight odd blocks of Brownsville, Brooklyn. Squad cars with flashing lights cruise along the main avenues: Livonia to Powell to Sutter to Rockaway. And again.

Antiq Hennis was shot at Livonia Avenue and Bristol Street in in the Marcus Garvey Village project. Unfortunately by then, Stop and Frisk had already been eliminated by Judge Shira Scheindlin, better known as Judge Judy’s daughter, a liberal judge appointed by Bill Clinton.

The murder of Antiq Henis is a reminder that liberals like Judge Shira Scheindlin have the blood of the very black people they claim to be trying to protect on their hands.

  • Veracious_one

    The murder of Antiq Henis is a reminder that liberals like Judge Shira
    Scheindlin have the blood of the very black people they claim to be
    trying to protect on their hands.

    That’s true, but it’s the black people who object to ‘stop, question, frisk’….

    • BenZacharia

      I am not black and I object to the violation of my G-d given right to go about my business un-molested. The article reminds me of the headlines screaming that “Sunset of Assualt Weapon Ban Leads to Mass School Shootings”. What a bunch of dreck. I object to Terry Stops too. If a LEO asks if he could speak to me I have the right to say NO!

  • ziggy zoggy

    The police should tell the judge to try to enforce her order – and go back to stop and frisk.

    • Well Done

      Want to be that this judge nor most of the creeps against stop and frisk live anywhere near any neighborhood that will benefit from it?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Their ideas are fine in theory but they’re not interested in testing these ideas against reality. There might be a third way, but they just shut down programs that have valid justifications without any idea they’re falling in to the traps of these false dichotomies.

      • Paula Douglas

        No one “benefits” when all our rights are subject to revocation at the whim of the state and its representatives. Well, except for the state. It benefits. Its power expands exponentially with every stop, and our freedoms wither accordingly. I’d say it was ironic to hear so-called freedom-loving conservatives advocating for an unrestrained police state, but I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday, so in fact it doesn’t surprise me a bit. The “logic” of stop-and-frisk is that rousting random people in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity or intent to commit a crime can make us all safer. By that standard the state should be able to premptively imprison people in the interest of crime prevention. No one is safe when everyone’s rights are forfeit.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “No one “benefits” when all our rights are subject to revocation at the whim of the state and its representatives.”

          We should not shift power at all. We should come up with policies that are practical and constitutional. If the policies have problems, solve the problems. Don’t create false dichotomies as if any program will always violate the constitution. We need to work out the details to ensure we have law and order according to the constitution. We don’t give up on law and order to save the constitution because that’s not what is says at all.

          The aggressive police programs might have constitutional issues to work out, but the leftists argue for worse. They argue in support of anarchy. Which is what you are supporting in reality.

          “I’d say it was ironic to hear so-called freedom-loving conservatives advocating for an unrestrained police state, but I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday, so in fact it doesn’t surprise me a bit.”

          Um, yeah because you’re very familiar with leftist discourse, what leftists believe, and what leftists believe that conservatives believe.

          You want anarchy and call it liberty. It’s a form of liberty, but you can’t claim it’s constitutional. Not here in the USA.

          I also find it funny that the same people who fight FOR gun laws fight AGAINST enforcing them. Why is that?

          It seems like a specific attack against law abiding citizens. It seems like advocating anarchy, whether you’re aware of it or not. Awareness makes you an anarchist. Naivete makes you a dupe.

          • Paula Douglas

            I’m not a leftist. I’m not fighting for more gun laws. Why would you make those baseless assumptions? And if you want to enforce gun laws, then why stop at the street corner? Why not go door-to-door and barge into people’s homes on the off chance that they might have an illegal gun sitting in a drawer somewhere? Or a pile of coke on the coffee table? It makes as much sense as random street stops. You can’t have a state constrained by law, a government that protects individual rights, if that government isn’t bound by logic, reason, and the natural rights of the individual. In fact, I’m unequivocally pro-Second Amendment, which is exactly why I object to cops being able to stop me at random and shove their noses in my business and their hands down my shirt.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not a leftist. I’m not fighting for more gun laws. Why would you make those baseless assumptions? And if you want to enforce gun laws, then why stop at the street corner?”

            I assumed your orientation based on your angle of attack. Your angle of attack was from the left.

            “In fact, I’m unequivocally pro-Second Amendment, which is exactly why I object to cops being able to stop me at random and shove their noses in my business and their hands down my shirt.”

            These policies have generally been implemented in areas where they already have gun control. If you read some of my other comments you’ll see that I’m trying to argue for using the constitution as a guideline after recognizing that leftists have already forced this certain communities by taking away the right to self-defense.

            Since we’re making the same case, I’ll change my evaluation but attacking “conservative” who compromise is not the same as attacking conservatives as if they are hypocrites.

            You said: “No one “benefits” when all our rights are subject to revocation at the whim of the state and its representatives. Well, except for the state. It benefits. Its power expands exponentially with every stop, and our freedoms wither accordingly.”

            That’s right, but they already took that power when they restricted right to bear arms. Conservatives want them to use that power towards enforcing law and order, or we have anarchy. That is where the status quo leads.

            But conservatives also argue from your position too, I just misread you because of perceptions I have about people that put a priority on attacking the police cracking down on criminal behavior.

          • Paula Douglas

            They already took that power? And you’re okay with that? The correct response is to say that we should be trying to get that power away from the government, not figuring out how best to mollify statist conservatives who want to use that power to benefit their own side of the aisle. No one in the government should have that power. The Constitution still says that very thing. The citizenry needs to force the government to return to its constitutional limits, not squabble over how it should use the power it wrongly arrogated to itself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The correct response is to say that we should be trying to get that power away from the government, not figuring out how best to mollify statist conservatives who want to use that power to benefit their own side of the aisle.”

            I am saying that. You’re trying to use emotional arguments and I’m trying to use practical arguments. None of my arguments hand any more power to the state. I’m trying to force them to justify it objectively. They’ve already set precedents and little by little the statists are winning big time. The only thing that can save us is to teach HOW to get back to the constitution. Very few people are in favor of deviating from the constitution in principal, but it’s not considered absolute because of emotional arguments.

            You going around saying that it’s absolutely always unconstitutional may be in strict terms correct, but it’s a losing argument. They’ve already defeated that one when you play by their tactics.

            Slow down and look at the bigger picture and put together a more comprehensive and coherent argument.

          • Paula Douglas

            You might not hand more power to the state, but you’re not trying to reduce that power, either: you’re “trying to force them to justify it objectively.” They cannot and they will not. It cannot be done logically or by any resort to reason. Why don’t you just skip that part and go straight to getting the power away from them? And since when is being right the losing side of an argument? If you know that you’re right and you still concede to the people who are wrong, what are you accomplishing? What are you teaching them about yourself and about their power over you? Why should they change, if you know you’re right but refuse to fight for it? There is no bigger picture than our natural rights as protected by the Constitution. That’s as big as it gets. We either insist that the government be restrained within those limits, or anything goes, as it has gone for more than a century.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why don’t you just skip that part and go straight to getting the power away from them?”

            Because I don’t see an effective way to be as direct as you want to be, but I’m not stopping you from trying either. I’m simply saying that I want these issues to be dealt with comprehensively and objectively. That way when I lose out to emotional arguments at least I’ve planted seeds for the next potential victory.

            But like I’ve said in various ways, if you think you can win your way faster than I can, I would love to be proved wrong.

            “…you’re “trying to force them to justify it objectively.” They cannot and they will not.”

            Objectivity never wins in court? Then you have no constitution at all. You’ve got ideology.

            “And since when is being right the losing side of an argument?”

            You’ve never heard of a moral victory losing the day? You’re right in absolute terms but not dealing comprehensively with the issue so you’re not building a compelling case for your argument. That’s because few people believe in absolute interpretations of that “ancient document.”

            How about this: You’re absolutely right and good luck. I will be rooting for you. I just won’t be following you.

          • Paula Douglas

            No, I meant that the state cannot justify its power objectively. You said that you’re “trying to force [statists] to justify [the expansion of power] objectively.” Unless I completely misunderstood you there. They cannot justify the expansion of power objectively and they don’t even want to try. They know that their only chance of winning any argument is by appealing to emotion, subjectivity, and the LIV to whom those things are a comfort. This isn’t the forum for dealing comprehensively with the issue of how to win minds stunted by decades of government schooling; how to privatize all the schools; how to develop and nurture a society that upholds the rights of the individual and subordinates the state to those rights; etc. That’s beyond the scope of the discussion. I’ll take the moral victory, by the way. I’d rather be right and lose a battle, because I can still win the war. The statists are wrong, and their entire decrepit edifice is built on lies, human weaknesses, and subjectivity. They win now because they rely on those lies, weaknesses, and that subjectivity consistently. The most consistent side in any argument will win it. When consistency in defense of correct principles is established by the other side, then the victories will come, but when matters of principle are involved there can be no compromise. To compromise is to concede.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, I meant that the state cannot justify its power objectively. You said that you’re “trying to force [statists] to justify [the expansion of power] objectively.” Unless I completely misunderstood you there.”

            And if we establish that objectivity is crucial, that means they fail to justify their unconstitutional power grabs. That’s what you want, isn’t it? My goal is not a more objective nanny state. My goal is showing the nanny state that they’ve failed to make their case objectively and therefore we win, which means the nanny state loses.

            “They know that their only chance of winning any argument is by appealing to emotion, subjectivity, and the LIV to whom those things are a comfort.”

            Precisely my point.

            “This isn’t the forum for dealing comprehensively with the issue of how to win minds stunted by decades of government schooling; how to privatize all the schools; how to develop and nurture a society that upholds the rights of the individual and subordinates the state to those rights; etc. That’s beyond the scope of the discussion.”

            I see. I’d like to refer you to a site I recommend, called “Front Page Magazine” or frontpagemag.com. You might want to check it out.

            I agree that you have to limit scope to a degree, but not to the point of favoring the opposition’s objectives and victories. You need to achieve some logical balance. The root cause of this need for the police to react to these high crime areas is not that our state is too weak but that the state has weakened the individual too much. If the police have taken away some of my ability to defend myself because supposedly that’s their job, then I want it done such that it favors law and order with a careful eye of making sure that the state doesn’t also get more powerful in the process.

            And laying the groundwork for returning to objectivity in the courts and in congress as part of those battles seems more than just smart, it seems like the only way we can win. If we don’t return to objectivity then this constitution we have will only exist in theory. It will be ideological only and we’ll lose even more. It seems like we’re already close to the point of no return, but I’m no prophet.

            There are no inalienable rights without objectivity. You probably agree with that. The way to return to objectivity is to focus on objective arguments and attacking all of the salient emotional arguments that led to the losses we’re dealing with.

          • Paula Douglas

            I meant limiting the scope of this particular discussion. I haven’t got all day to write a philosophical treatise and then discuss the implications of it on everything from the specific way I’d go about privatizing the roads to whether the government should let gay bakers turn down business from straight people. You kept asking for a bigger picture or something comprehensive, and I don’t know what you expect in this format beyond what I already provided: my opinion that the Constitution cannot be bent or flexed or otherwise adapted to justify stop and frisk policies. How that becomes favoring the opposition I don’t know. You are correct that the state has weakened the individual’s ability to act in his own defense, but the solution is not to give it more latitude for harassing us while we walk around disarmed. That’s not consistent. Consistent would be fighting for gun rights and the right not to be stopped and asked for our papers. If constitutional limits on the state and freedom for the individual are the goal, then stop and frisk is the last thing that we should be tolerating. I agree with the last two paragraphs of the above post.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The most consistent side in any argument will win it.”

            Consistency is good as a rule, but that doesn’t mean complexity is always bad. Effectiveness and integrity are guiding absolutes, but not necessarily simplicity. And you’ve conflated consistency with simplicity as far as I can read you here.

            Or you’re saying that I must be consistent and pretend that they haven’t won some battles already. There is only a single rigid constitution and it’s plain that I should win? That’s not working.

            That’s been tried many times. Do you really think there is any chance of winning that way other than recruiting people for civil war? It’s too easy to paint this view as out of touch with modern issues. And we need to show that most of these modern issues are a result of giving in to emotional socialist ideas rather than just dealing with “the new things of modern progress” because that is BS in all of the contentious issues. Most conservatives and even more libertarians have no problem regulating automobile exhaust for example.

            But pretending that “violence” is a modern problem or that is requires a modern “socially just” solution is complete BS, but they’re winning.

            What to do about that? I think the answer is to approach from more than one angle. You’re helping the cause by making part of the argument but I don’t think it’s a complete winning strategy. And if you prove me wrong we’ll both be happy.

          • Paula Douglas

            Consistency doesn’t imply or require simplicity. I did not and do not conflate the two. Conservatives are inconsistent when they claim to be for freedom but concede that a little bit of statism is necessary. In general they’re Democrat-lite. They aren’t consistent advocates of freedom. That’s what I meant by consistency. It has no implications one way or the other for simplicity or complexity. I would never say that one should pretend anything. The left has won a great number of victories, usually for lack of effective opposition, but when free choice is available to human beings the outcome of any given ideological fight is not inevitable. There is right and there is wrong, moral and immoral, but which will prevail on both individual and historical scales is anything but pre-ordained. If by civil war you mean literal war, then we are not yet at that point. The US exhibits many elements of dictatorship at this point, but we are still free to blog, associate, petition, assemble, and vote to change and negate those elements. When those avenues for political change close, then it will be time to talk about war. It’s earlier than people usually think, but we’re also making more progress than is immediately obvious. Just 20 years ago people didn’t throw the word “socialist” around to describe politicians. Now it’s common. There are more political pundits and bloggers trying to re-educate people now than ever before, and that means that people are exposed to ideas like never before.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “The “logic” of stop-and-frisk is that rousting random people in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity or intent to commit a crime can make us all safer.”

          That’s your logic. That’s a false assumption that there is an absence of criminal activity.

          • Paula Douglas

            If there were criminal activity then the police would stop someone based on that. Stop-and-frisk lets them stop people before they have any evidence of criminal activity or intent. That’s why it got thrown out by the judge–that and the fact that virtually no one who got stopped was ever charged with a crime, much less convicted.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If there were criminal activity then the police would stop someone based on that.”

            That is what they believe they are doing. You’re just unhappy about their standards for determining probable cause, who to stop and when.

            The policies need to be cleaned up and articulated better so that we don’t empower the state, nor the criminals more than we have to. And we do that by using the constitution as a rigid guideline.

            My position is that it is the left that has deviated from the rigid constitutional guidelines and conservatives are trying to find the most lawful and realistic compromises forced on them by the pro-crime left. The left has empowered the state and the criminals and points to the right as the supposed bad guys.

            “Stop-and-frisk lets them stop people before they have any evidence of criminal activity or intent.”

            At least these justifications were not clearly articulated. I’d agree with that. But that doesn’t mean we have to reject this kind of policing when the behavior and local crime statistics warrant it.

            “That’s why it got thrown out by the judge–that and the fact that virtually no one who got stopped was ever charged with a crime, much less convicted.”

            Just like at airports where people are stopped and searched as a matter of consistent policy. That tells me that we can probably come up with reasonable objective standards for high crime areas as well.

          • Paula Douglas

            Using the Constitution as a rigid guideline would immediately cede this debate to me. There is no provision in it which allows the police to stand around on street corners demanding to see people’s papers or rifle their purses and backpacks. In fact, there is a specific provision preventing them from doing exactly that. Please don’t try to tell me that my right to be secure in my person and effects stops at my front door. From 2004 to 2009 over 2 million people were stopped and frisked for weapons in New York. 98.5% of those people had no weapons of any kind. Only 6% of stops led to arrests, i.e., the cops were wrong 16 times more than they were right. More than a third of the time they didn’t even specify the crime they claim to have suspected. You know what their most common reason was to justify stopping someone? “High crime area” and “furtive movements.” Here are some more ultra-compelling reasons given for stopping people: “Moving in and out of a car too quickly.” “Making a ‘quick movement.’” “Looking over their shoulder.” “Sitting on benches or something like that.” And these are the people you want to entrust with our Fourth Amendment rights? Does any of that sound like probable cause to you? Does any of that sound like those cops have the judgement and perception necessary to effectively prevent crime? Because they haven’t effectively prevented crime: 98.5% of the people they stopped had no weapons of any kind, and of the remaining 1.5%, there is no way to make the case that had they not been stopped they would have committed a crime with whatever weapon they were carrying.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You know what their most common reason was to justify stopping someone? “High crime area” and “furtive movements.””

            It seems like you’re not reading what I’ve said. If there are special circumstances like government buildings that need “gun free zones” and “metal detectors,” then there are other circumstances that might require those steps as well. If not, then we have at least correctly put together a coherent position on who is responsible for protecting citizens and when. If it’s not ever constitutional for the police to put together effective means of disarming criminals then certainly that makes an even stronger case that disarming law-abiding citizens in spite of our explicit constitutional guarantees is *always* an outrageous violation.

            All of those decisions should not be left in the hands of the state. We need to restore the principals of checks and balances and make the government prove where, why and when they need special laws restricting firearms and enforcing those restrictions effectively enough to not inadvertently increase crime when they do so by causing the criminals to be the only well-armed residents. By checks and balances I don’t mean we each get guns, I just mean that if there are special cases where interpretations of the constitution need to be “bent” then we need to make sure these are done consistent with our principals of not handing that power to the state without assuring oversight and accountability to the public. First they violate individual rights for the “greater good” but then they remove accountability. Restore our ability to keep them accountable and in that fight we’ll surely be heading in the right direction; trimming the overgrown nanny state.

            My arguments first lead to consistency and coherency by correctly, objectively reviewing policies without unbundling them (which can lead to irrational arguments based on theory and emotion) and then saying that you need to meet specific objective tests before you limit the right to bear arms and cede that power to the state. When you do it, you need to make sure the justifications are clear and constitutional.

            In effect you then say that what some call “stop and frisk” and I call “reduced standards for determining probable cause relative to traditional interpretations” can be more objectively challenged and managed by officials that are responsible to the constitution and to their constituents.

            All I’ve said was that it could be done constitutionally, and you read that in your own way, deciding that you can read my mind.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Here are some more ultra-compelling reasons given for stopping people: “Moving in and out of a car too quickly.” “Making a ‘quick movement.’” “Looking over their shoulder.” “Sitting on benches or something like that.””

            There are ways to improve these policies and come up with objective standards for reasonable search, while recognizing that special times and places might requires different standards than other places. If not, then it’s never legitimate to take away right to bear arms under any circumstances.

            And in formulating those arguments you force them back to using the constitution and objective arguments rather than emotional ones.

            I guess the only thing you have to fear is that you already solve your problem by “illegally” carrying a firearm and you’re afraid that my suggestions for incremental-ism would hurt you. That’s a valid reason to make your case and to strongly bundle it with gun rights rather than simply saying “these extra searches can’t ever be constitutional.”

            At the very least, start pointing out the biggest reason for huge spikes in gun crime in these areas; only the police and the criminals carry guns.

          • Paula Douglas

            The police can disarm criminals until they go blue in the face–once the criminal has committed a crime. What they can’t do is randomly stop a guy who hasn’t committed a crime just because he got out of his car funny. Who is responsible for protecting citizens, and when? Citizens, always. Case law has established that the police are not responsible for protecting any given citizen. That’s every man’s job, not the cops’. The responsibility for my safety is mine. That’s the case morally, and practically every statistic shows that more guns mean less crime–if the guns are in the hands of the law-abiding. It doesn’t mean everyone has to be armed; many people probably should not. But the principle remains: my safety is my responsibility. The police and the courts are what happen after a crime has been committed, to ensure that the law is applied equally and objectively. I do not believe that there should be “gun free,” i.e. “get your disarmed victims here” zones. Anywhere. Unless a private business wants to advertise their vulnerability. You can have your rights violated with oversight if you like and your Constitution bent, and see how far that will get you. Personally I like my rights intact and my Constitution straight. Why do you want to limit rights at all? Why do you want a limited nanny state, instead of no nanny state at all? The Founders didn’t write the Bill of Rights to provide for limited government meddling in our lives. What’s a little violation of my right to be secure in my person and papers? Either I have that right or I do not. There is no middle ground here. You are trying to have it both ways, and the government is a double-edged sword. You like “reduced standards for determining probable cause,” but will you like reduced standards for a free press, or for freedom of association? Will you like it when the police can make warrantless entry into your home on alternate Wednesdays, but not otherwise because that’s what was determined by a bunch of LIVs? The only way to protect against the other side of that blade is to return to the principles already established in the Bill of Rights, not by massaging those principles because you like the result in a given case. The only thing you’re going to get consistently with your position is shafted by the government. Today, tomorrow, next week. But shafted. And so will everyone else.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The only thing you’re going to get consistently with your position is shafted by the government.”

            We’ve already been shafted. You hadn’t noticed? It was already in play long before I was born so I don’t feel too guilty about it personally.

            “Today, tomorrow, next week. But shafted. And so will everyone else.”

            And your direct methods are successfully tested how? How have you personally demonstrated that your direct and scattered approach is more effective than what I’ve suggested? I’d love to know and love to be wrong here. I like you’re way better, but your way is the most common approach already from those who understand that in absolute terms that you are correct. You just don’t have a way to win the argument according to recent interpretations of the law, although you do hold the dominant majority view on “completely random police frisking.” You’ll win a few battles but the big nanny state will continue to win the war.

            Without objectivity in law, you have no republic. You have a pure democracy that might be cloaked in other ideals but it’s still mob rule. Some mobs are simply more polite than others.

          • Paula Douglas

            I agree. Well, I’m not sure what you mean by my direct and scattered approach, but I can tell you that my consistent adherence to my principles has had a direct and meaningful impact on at least two people in my life, neither of whom gave much thought to politics and certainly not to philosophy before we started discussing it. I didn’t proselytize or harangue; I didn’t even introduce the topics, usually. I answered questions as they came up, questions usually about current events and my take on them. Both of these people whom I turned to the Dark Side were receptive to reason and either already understood or were pretty easily convinced of the importance of ideas. One of these people lives in Seattle, where her exposure to lefty rubbish is considerable. I don’t know what else I’m supposed to do, other than vote, harass politicians, post commentary like this when it’s warranted, and pay attention to current events so that I’m not an easy mark for ideological hucksters. If I’m supposed to lead a revolution that overthrows 150 years of statist oppression in three easy steps, then you’ve got the wrong guy. But I practice what I preach and I can make my case in the context of current events that people notice and which matter to them. When I encounter people who are receptive or at least open to hearing another opinion than what they’ve held by default, then I can make a case and have an impact on their thinking. I don’t know who could ask for much more.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “The “logic” of stop-and-frisk is that rousting random people in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity or intent to commit a crime can make us all safer.”

          What is your position on metal detectors…anywhere? Aren’t those doing worse things to “liberty?”

          • Paula Douglas

            I am opposed to the government operating metal detectors if it is doing a job that a private company should be doing. Airline security is an example. That should be the responsibility of the individual airline. The government could reasonably operate metal detectors in government buildings, I suppose, although I haven’t given that one a lot of thought. The government could not constitutionally or morally set up metal detectors on street corners and then force people to walk through them, which is effectively what stop-and-frisk is doing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I am opposed to the government operating metal detectors if it is doing a job that a private company should be doing. Airline security is an example. That should be the responsibility of the individual airline.”

            So we should have private contractors to replace local police when applying “stop and frisk” style programs? That seems trivial but we’ll return to it if later if you insist. Otherwise I’ll stipulate to that as a condition when the need arises if that is your main concern.

            “The government could reasonably operate metal detectors in government buildings, I suppose, although I haven’t given that one a lot of thought.”

            Uh huh. Maybe you should give that some thought. Why would it be more legitimate to protect government officials or property than it is to protect residents in high crime areas?

            “The government could not constitutionally or morally set up metal detectors on street corners and then force people to walk through them, which is effectively what stop-and-frisk is doing.”

            They ought to be held to some consistent objective standards so that we don’t have an abuse of police powers. And please don’t bring “morals” in to it. If we can’t agree on the constitution, adding nebulous factors will not help us come to any useful conclusions.

            And they’re not forced to walk through the metal detectors until they enter the designated area.

    • Richard McCargar

      You are advocating a fascist, police state. Have you no sense of proportion? What other parts of the constitution will you give away so you can have a false sense of security.

      Ignorant people like you are the problem, not the solution. You make it easy for those in power to take away our rights, under the b.s. line of “safety.”

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “You are advocating a fascist, police state. Have you no sense of proportion? What other parts of the constitution will you give away so you can have a false sense of security.”

        Your point is valid as a general concern, but perhaps not in context. Perhaps “stop and frisk” should be legal when supervised by a judge according to community need.

        What we need are checks and balances, not some pretension that we can’t ever try to enforce law and order just because it violates principals of liberty in theory. How much liberty do you have when there is no constitutional law and order?

        I don’t think anyone here is advocating a police state and certainly not a fascist state, but you might not know what a fascist state would be.

        Everyone has a right to due process. Due process will vary according to what is due. Meandering around where many other people are carrying guns and contributing to lawlessness is not illegal per se, but it doesn’t mean you don’t make yourself subject to search when your behavior is in line with the hegemonic criminal element. It’s not punishment to be searched…but I agree that we can’t give too much power to the police. We shouldn’t give them any additional power at all, because they should follow strict guidelines that are accomplishing our goals related to law and order according to the constitution. We need balance and that means perhaps you need to investigate a bit more about what is going on in reality in some locations and what the costs are of maintaining your delusions.

        • Richard McCargar

          Enforcing the law, includes our constitutional rights. There is no exception for judges to oversee police enforcement of laws that are unconstitutional.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There is no exception for judges to oversee police enforcement of laws that are unconstitutional.”

            We’ll just take your word for it that it any such program would violate the constitution.

          • Richard McCargar

            Please explain the process by which an unconstitutional law can be made constitutional by having a judge oversee it.

            Next, a judge has already ruled against the law. You are suggesting that somehow, an extra-judicial process could be added solely to satisfy your desire to see this process continue.

            It is incumbent on you to disprove the illegality of searching people without suspicion.

            The fact that suspicion was not actually being applied, was evidenced by the fact that over ninety-percent of those stopped and frisked were never charged with any crime.

            That is text-book illegal search.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Please explain the process by which an unconstitutional law can be made constitutional by having a judge oversee it.”

            How dense are you? Any law in theory can be rectified without throwing it out entirely, if you want to just go on theory. If you want to argue over case law, show me the text and maybe we can have an extended discussion about that so that I can give you examples.

            “Next, a judge has already ruled against the law.”

            That’s a starting point, not an end point.

            “You are suggesting that somehow, an extra-judicial process could be added solely to satisfy your desire to see this process continue.”

            No, I’m saying examine the case and rectify it rather than accepting this or any other false dichotomy. Just because a judge rejected a given law doesn’t mean that it can’t be rectified if the constitutional issues are resolved. Laws aren’t elements of the periodic table. You can use “rejected” laws as templates for acceptable laws if you fix the “bad” aspects of the law.

            “It is incumbent on you to disprove the illegality of searching people without suspicion.”

            That’s true. Unfortunately, the conservative vs. leftist divide has introduced some bogus theories about “disparate outcomes” that make it more difficult. But it’s not impossible. The policies must be designed and articulated carefully to resolve constitutional issues.

            Conservatives are for law and order. And if you don’t hear the entire arguments you might make incorrect assumptions, or you might catch a frustrated conservative that is unable to fully articulate the theories. That doesn’t mean that we can’t do something when a community descends in to anarchy,

            We should all want law and order rather than making destructive arguments. The biggest problems today related to working together is that so many people have knee-jerk reactions to the discourse and think they know the answers already. Communists fed those answers to so many of you. What need do you have to listen to anyone else? You intuitively know that it’s a crisis to stop and search someone without a warrant or without the traditional standards for probable cause (which is the key phrase) but you have no problems with limiting the constitutional right to bear arms.

            Can you appreciate the connection? YOU empower the state when YOU take away guns from law abiding citizens. Now we’re trying to achieve a compromise with a modified standard for “reasonable” search.

            You can’t separate stop and frisk from right to bear arms. You empowered the state, don’t get angry when we want to tilt the compromise back towards law and order. I agree we must not compromise on the constitution even though you don’t seem all that consistent in your concerns.

          • Richard McCargar

            Travelling in the slow lane, aren’t you!?!

            You wrote: “Any law in theory can be rectified without throwing it out entirely.” That wasn’t your point. Your point was that a judge could just oversee the police, as if that somehow makes an illegal search legal.

            I’m not a leftist, I’m a person who actually thinks our government should be limited to the constitution, I’m a libertarian.

            Conservative continue to vote for supposed republicans who are nothing less than Dem-Lite.

            I want the least invasive government possible.

            You seem to not mind big-government as long as it is delivering the policies you want.

            In what way are you different than a liberal who also wants to use big-government to push its favorite policies?’

            You and liberals are two-sides of the same coin. Big-government advocates.

            The only difference is which policies you want it to push.

            Sorry, I’ve explained it to you, but cannot understand it for you.

            I’ve shown you are wrong, you play the weasel game, and keep slightly changing your point to avoid that fact.

            You’ve wasted enough of my time.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That wasn’t your point. Your point was that a judge could just oversee the police, as if that somehow makes an illegal search legal.”

            It depends on the case. In theory, a law could be written giving a judge oversight.

            “Conservative continue to vote for supposed republicans who are nothing less than Dem-Lite. I want the least invasive government possible.”

            I agree. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

            “You seem to not mind big-government as long as it is delivering the policies you want.”

            The policies I want are to steer the government back in the right direction; smaller. And I don’t want to waste my time so I try to approach it realistically. Those who want to return to yesteryear have plenty to contribute as far as vision, and if you succeed more than I do, I’ll be pleased. I’m just not as optimistic as you are and I’d rather try to be effective.

            “I’ve shown you are wrong, you play the weasel game, and keep slightly changing your point to avoid that fact.”

            If I was wrong about your approach and made a false assumption. I’ve conceded to that. You don’t need to be a baby about it, but you are certainly free to be. You seem more infected emotionally by the left than you realize.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            ‘I’m not a leftist, I’m a person who actually thinks our government should be limited to the constitution, I’m a libertarian.”

            You are a leftist when you want destructive change. Conservative libertarians want to work the system constructively, which means without breaking it. Leftist libertarians have similar ideals to conservatives but don’t care about conservation of order.

            It’s not entirely clear to me how I judge you, but you seem like a leftist libertarian to me that doesn’t understand the full gamut of ideologies and where the ideas come from.

            As I said before, I might not have a problem if your ideals are purely based on the constitution. I’d only then argue with you being about making constructive change rather than pushing for destructive change. If you haven’t gotten that far and just want “the right change” without considering the consequences, then there is a good chance that you’re a leftist libertarian.

            They rarely realize their orientation on the left. Unfortunately for you as someone that hates it, the left right paradigm is a pure dichotomy, even if the line in the middle gets fuzzy. There are still only 2 choices in that paradigm. Do you want to see constructive change, destructive change, or change at any cost?

            The latter 2 options are both on the left.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The fact that suspicion was not actually being applied, was evidenced by the fact that over ninety-percent of those stopped and frisked were never charged with any crime.”

            You must really be angry about searches at airports. Those according to you are de facto breaches of the constitution. Right?

          • Richard McCargar

            Another off-point comment. Supposedly, we don’t have to fly. But yes, I don’t care for security theater, and you shouldn’t either.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I fully understand the arguments and my point is that there will be other cases where circumstances might justify similar policies. I’m not saying that we should just “trust the police” to interpret the constitution as they please. I’m not happy with how these policies have been implemented but I understand that the underlying need is caused by lack of respect for the constitution on both sides, mainly from the left as far as I can see.

            And the discourse is often destructive, so we’re not able to understand how to come to compromises that are pro-liberty according to the constitution. Enabling criminals is in itself not pro liberty. It doesn’t justify a blank check for anyone. We need to work these things out coherently.

            It’s only “off point” to you because you’re not thinking in comprehensive and coherent terms.

          • Don Merriam

            They are, and that’s why I don’t fly unless there is no other mode of transportation available if I can avoid it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There is no exception for judges to oversee police enforcement of laws that are unconstitutional.”

            I take it that metal detectors also violate the constitution?

          • Richard McCargar

            Metal detectors are not being used to randomly search people who are traveling on public throughways.

            As they are not used in ‘right-of-way’ situations, your analogy fails.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Metal detectors are not being used to randomly search people who are traveling on public throughways.”

            Really? Not random? So what standards are used to determine probable cause for running someone through the metal detectors?

            And what distinguishes an airport from a “public throughway?”

            “As they are not used in ‘right-of-way’ situations, your analogy fails.”

            You don’t understand the analogy yet. The point is that legitimacy of searches are determined in part by circumstances, including location.

            You’re comprehension fails.

        • Don Merriam

          Well, I hope you’ll be totally understanding when the cops throw you up against the wall, pat you down, and say, “Just doing my job.” And don’t object when they do the same to your wife or children either.

  • Well Done

    Each time you hear some dipshiite speak out against “racial profiling” or similar crime prevention activity, remember why it is done. Then ask yourself why some people want it to stop. Then remember the dead one-year old. Dead at the altar of “we mustn’t infringe on the freedom of know criminals.”

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Each time you hear some dipshiite speak out against “racial profiling” or similar crime prevention activity, remember why it is done.”

      Racial profiling is wrong. Behavioral profiling is not. Learning the difference is crucial to finding a workable solution that doesn’t violate the constitution or give seemingly valid arguments to delusional leftists.

  • Richard McCargar

    This is nonsense. First, there is no guarantee that stop-and-frisk would have caught the criminals in this case, and second, stop-and-frisk is a direct assault on the right to proceed in public without unlawful search.

    By New York’s own numbers, over ninety-percent of all people stopped are never charged with a crime.

    That is 90 out of 100 people who are not criminals, who have lost their liberty due to a fascist like need for “safety.”

    Life isn’t safe. Giving away our rights won’t make us safe. Have none of you studied the past?

  • mikeman

    Life is cheap in Brownstone, and every other inner city in America. And there is a disconnect between “human rights” in the ghetto vs. the safety and civility of Scheindlin’s well paid world. Like mayor bloomberg, this judge assumes the masses need her guidance and direction.

    Wait until her kids are threatened or injured, wait until drugs ruin her neighborhood, wait until violent sociopaths dominate the night in her world. She has made a very poor ruling, but that’s what libtards do, and that’s why there is a Brownstone.

  • NAHALKIDES

    We conservatives seem to be divided on this, with the majority apparently in favor of “stop and frisk”. While I applaud Rudy Giuliani’s other law enforcement efforts, I’ve never liked “stop and frisk” because it seemed to me the only things police were likely to find were drugs and guns – and neither of these is, frankly, any of the government’s business. Notice that no real crimes are being solved that way (by “real crimes” I mean murder, rape, assault, and so forth). It’s not like the police are going to find the clue that solves a two-year-old murder inside someone’s pocket.

    No, let the police go about search and seizure the way the Founders intended – with a search warrant obtained when they can show probable cause. I’m not oblivious to the crime problem in NYC, but a better approach would be to end the gangster culture and the welfare state, particularly housing projects, that breed crime. You can’t cure the pathologies of the inner city by violating the Constitution.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Stop and search is imperfect but necessary if you want to demand that law abiding citizens can not carry guns. Taken together, outlawing guns and then saying that if you’re bold enough to break the laws, we can’t preempt crimes is a bit stupid and inconsistent.

      So allow concealed carry and then forget about stop and frisk.

      Some times our courts are unable to deal with the big picture coherently. That’s really why we need congress, if a bunch of disparate laws each seem like a good idea, but taken together they take us away from our constitutional liberties.

      Stop and frisk is a necessary compromise while we as citizens are not allowed to arm ourselves. If these leftist lunatics want constitutional liberty, they can focus first on those liberties that are explicitly guaranteed, and then I’ll take their ideas more seriously.

      These people are just communist dupes. They believe in one thing at a time because of discrete arguments that are based on delusion. Communist propaganda led them to believe in these things without teaching them coherency and what the sums are. They don’t understand stop and frisk is a result of taking away right to bear arms from law abiding citizens. It’s really their fault, not ours.

      • Don Merriam

        You favor one unconstitutional law as a compromromise until the government restores a right that was unconstitutionally taken from you in the first place? Both laws are unconstitutional and both should be thrown out. We get our rights to defend ourselves and not be molested walking down the street and the cops can spend their time writing parking tickets in the city for diplomats with immunity who never pay the fines anyway. That, or they can hang out at Dunkin’ Donuts and fondle a jelly roll instead of someone’s junk.

      • NAHALKIDES

        I’ll go along with your argument, and of course the answer is that concealed carry should be “allowed” in New York since it is a fundamental right.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Agreed.

    • Veracious_one

      Notice that no real crimes are being solved that way (by “real crimes” I mean murder, rape, assault, and so forth).

      the main objective of stop, question, frisk is to prevent crime by finding illegal guns, drugs, and catching people on outstanding warrants…solving crimes already committed is routine police work

      • NAHALKIDES

        Well, as I mentioned, I don’t consider drugs or guns to be any of the government’s business. As for outstanding warrants, the police should either stake out the guy’s last known address or run checks when they have a valid reason for questioning someone. I don’t expect to be stopped and searched by the police for no reason just so they can run a check to see if I happen to have any outstanding warrants.

  • Nick

    This article says “bullshit” right from the beginning. Talk about misinformed, stop and frisk would have had nothing to do with it

  • Gamal

    Shira has a long history of bad decisions several which have been overturned. Having said that she didn’t exactly ban stop n frisk. I think she wants equal number of stops for whites and blacks which is a crazy requirement for policemen in predominantly black areas where the majority of perpetrators are blacks.

  • hunter

    I feel horible that a child was killed, frisk is unamerican, and unconstitutional.
    the child was killed, not because of a lack of stop and frisk, but because of the liberal policies of the 70′s and 80′s. we have to recreate a society where we respect life, where there is a sense of right and wrong. where the whole neighborhood would help find this guy and deal with him.

    • lonebear

      Well said. Lack of stop and frisk didn’t cause this and would not have stopped it likely. It is the deeper trouble in our society that caused this and until we start pointing fingers in the right direction it will go on. It is interesting you pointed out the 70′s and 80′s. I was talking to someone recently and we both agreed there was a profound shift in our culture in 1973 which so happens to be the year our country decided it was ok to end life in the womb.

  • Don Merriam

    Yeah, yeah, yeah….. Blah, blah, blah. The Fourth Amendment was designed to stop arbitrary police searches without probable cause. The judge got it correct! You want to reduce violent crime, allow people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Everywhere it’s been tried the crime rate has gone down. All stop and frisk does is turn would-be victims into criminals for daring to exercise a right that has been unconstitutionally taken away from them by an over-reaching government, in this case, Micheal “You Can’t Drink That Because I Forbid It!” Bloomberg’s city police force. The Founding Fathers had it right. Bloomberg’s got it wrong and the judge told him so.

  • poetcomic1

    All the constitutional niceties don’t apply – Brownsville is a WAR ZONE and as in all war zones the innocent are often the victims.