2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eboue said:
The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures. Police need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and probable cause to search.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a stupid rule. If someone thinks you look suspicious, then it's either your fault for drawing suspicion to yourself or they're simply mistaken and you move on. No harm done. The world isn't perfect and that goes for both sides. Your every day person and government/law enforcement. Humans are human.

If someone got shot for no reason then sure, but stopped and searched?
 
Zarlak said:
Sounds like a stupid rule. If someone thinks you look suspicious, then it's either your fault for drawing suspicion to yourself or they're simply mistaken and you move on. No harm done. The world isn't perfect and that goes for both sides. Your every day person and government/law enforcement. Humans are human.

If someone got shot for no reason then sure, but stopped and searched?
Click to expand...

What? You think police should be able to stop anyone they want and search their stuff at any time? Are you serious?
 
Eboue said:
What? You think police should be able to stop anyone they want and search their stuff at any time? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

If they look suspicious then yes. That's their job. On the one hand you have people complaining that the police don't do anything until it's too late and then on the other you have people complaining when they try to pre-empt a situation from intuition or a cause for suspicion because of ticker tape that does nothing but make people feel important.

If I look shady and a policeman searches me it's done no harm whatsoever. If he doesn't search me because he's scared of violating my rights and I'm actually distributing drugs then all the stupid ticker tape has done is help me out.
 
Zarlak said:
If they look suspicious then yes. That's their job. On the one hand you have people complaining that the police don't do anything until it's too late and then on the other you have people complaining when they try to pre-empt a situation from intuition or a cause for suspicion because of ticker tape that does nothing but make people feel important.
Click to expand...

"If they look suspicious" So a police officer can stop anyone who they don't like the look of on the street and force them to empty their backpack and sort through it any time they want? That's ludicrous.
 
Eboue said:
"If they look suspicious" So a police officer can stop anyone who they don't like the look of on the street and force them to empty their backpack and sort through it any time they want? That's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

It's really not, it's common sense. I don't care if I'm held up for 2 minutes if it means the police are doing their job. Likewise I don't care if you're held up for 2 minute because the police thought you looked suspicious.

I have to conduct fraud checks at work. This consists of looking through transactions to see who may potentially be fraudulent and hold their transactions if it looks like it. The reasoning for this can be anything and is a lot of the time based on intuition. People satisfy our checks and no harm done. A lot of the time, we're right and we're prevented as a business from losing thousands of pounds that could otherwise not have been recovered.

Banks routinely monitor your transactions and block ones they don't think fit your profile. They have no evidence at all that something unjust is going on, they do it anyway and it takes about 2 minutes to sort out. The 99 times that they do this unnecessarily trumps the 1 time they catch somebody trying to use your card fraudulently. The same with the police. The system you're seemingly proposing is in my opinion ludicrous because you're proposing that they should be blocked from doing their job until they meet some kind of criteria that doesn't seem to be defined anywhere and so they should stand by while people break the law because they're afraid of holding them up for 60 seconds? That to me is ludicrous.

The point is, sometimes shit just happens and it's worth it for the times that it is actually justified.
 
Silva said:
It's not like that kind of approach ever leads to police to fecking over minorities and poor people. No, they're just helping society grind along.
Click to expand...

Let's not mistake stopping someone and searching them for fecking over minorities and poor people. To be fecked over implies something other than simply being searched which means it doesn't fit in with what we're discussing, because what we're discussing is people simply being searched because they may have drawn attention to themselves in some way that prompted it.
 
Zarlak said:
Let's not mistake stopping someone and searching them for fecking over minorities and poor people. To be fecked over implies something other than simply being searched which means it doesn't fit in with what we're discussing, because what we're discussing is people simply being searched because they may have drawn attention to themselves in some way that prompted it.
Click to expand...
And when one of someone who says no after the thousandth of it happening? It's a shit policy Zarlak, a white man in a suit isn't going to get stopped and searched and a black youngster in a hoody will. For no good reason might I add. And it's going to happen over and over, and eventually they'll stand up for themselves, and it'll be to the wrong police officer and he'll get broken bones or worse.
 
Zarlak said:
It's really not, it's common sense. I don't care if I'm held up for 2 minutes if it means the police are doing their job. Likewise I don't care if you're held up for 2 minute because the police thought you looked suspicious.

I have to conduct fraud checks at work. This consists of looking through transactions to see who may potentially be fraudulent and hold their transactions if it looks like it. The reasoning for this can be anything and is a lot of the time based on intuition. People satisfy our checks and no harm done. A lot of the time, we're right and we're prevented as a business from losing thousands of pounds that could otherwise not have been recovered.

Banks routinely monitor your transactions and block ones they don't think fit your profile. They have no evidence at all that something unjust is going on, they do it anyway and it takes about 2 minutes to sort out. The 99 times that they do this unnecessarily trumps the 1 time they catch somebody trying to use your card fraudulently. The same with the police. The system you're seemingly proposing is in my opinion ludicrous because you're proposing that they should be blocked from doing their job until they meet some kind of criteria that doesn't seem to be defined anywhere and so they should stand by while people break the law because they're afraid of holding them up for 60 seconds? That to me is ludicrous.

The point is, sometimes shit just happens and it's worth it for the times that it is actually justified.
Click to expand...

That's because the people you are fraud checking are choosing to actively engage in an activity. Similarly, people who choose to go to the airport have to pass through screeners and that is fine because they are actively choosing to engage in that activity. You are suggesting police can stop anyone on the street, can enter any home, can look in any private place whenever they want. It's insane. It is actually a police state you are proposing and it doesn't happen in western democracies because obviously.
 
Silva said:
And when one of someone who says no after the thousandth of it happening? It's a shit policy Zarlak, a white man in a suit isn't going to get stopped and searched and a black youngster in a hoody will. For no good reason might I add.
Click to expand...

Let's not exaggerate. Nobody ever got searched a thousand times. Nowhere in this discussion did I mention race, and I'm sure you're well aware that a black man in a suit probably won't get stopped and searched either while a white youngster in a hoody also will at times. Let's not be ridiculous and create that scenario.
 
Zarlak said:
Let's not exaggerate. Nobody ever got searched a thousand times. Nowhere in this discussion did I mention race, and I'm sure you're well aware that a black man in a suit probably won't get stopped and searched either while a white youngster in a hoody also will at times. Let's not be ridiculous and create that scenario.
Click to expand...
The scenario is real mate, because it happens.

The evidence in ‘Stop and think’ suggests that some forces are exercising their powers not on the basis of intelligence or reasonable suspicion but on stereotypical assumptions, which is not helping to make society safer. Black people are at least six times as likely to be stopped as white people; Asian people, around twice as likely.
Click to expand...

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...raceinbritain/ehrc_stop_and_search_report.pdf

And this is in the UK, where institutional racism isn't as bad as in the states.
 
Eboue said:
That's because the people you are fraud checking are choosing to actively engage in an activity. Similarly, people who choose to go to the airport have to pass through screeners and that is fine because they are actively choosing to engage in that activity. You are suggesting police can stop anyone on the street, can enter any home, can look in any private place whenever they want. It's insane. It is actually a police state you are proposing and it doesn't happen in western democracies because obviously.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if they're choosing to engage in an activity. The principle is the same. They're choosing to do something and I am choosing to stop them from doing it on no factual basis simply on my feeling of suspicion.

Also you're either severely misunderstanding me or you're exaggerating. I suggested that police can stop anyone that they deem suspicious. That obviously eliminates the notion of shits and giggles. Also one slight thing does not mean that I am proposing a police state. I'm sure you're well aware that a police state would involve a lot of other things that I'm not suggesting. Let's not leap to extremes.

It is in my opinion perfectly fair that if a police man deems somebody to be acting suspiciously, that they can seek to establish whether they're correct or not. This approach is how it's always been done. It happens here in the UK, it happens in the US, it doesn't mean a police state at all that's a huge exaggeration. Many times it's justified and it works, some times it's not and somebody is inconvenienced for all of 2 minutes. Other times, drug dealers are arrested, people with firearms are arrested etc etc.
 
Going through their shit at will isn't the right approach though. That's the reason warrants are a thing. If you can't get a warrant to search somebody you really don't really have enough reason to search them at all.
 
Eboue said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy


You haven't thought this through.
Click to expand...

I have thought it through. One example doesn't mean anything. There are likely thousands of examples of it being the right thing to do. As Raoul said, sometimes the byproduct of it is that some people are inconvenienced and in situations like that, the innocent should be fully compensated. We can't shy away from taking action because of some stupid ticker tape that allows somebody to commit an act that has greater consequences than had someone simply been searched to begin with.

Also I haven't mentioned entering anybodies homes, we were discussing being stopped on the street because you've done something to look suspicious, or at least that's what I thought.
 
Zarlak said:
I have thought it through. One example doesn't mean anything. There are likely thousands of examples of it being the right thing to do. As Raoul said, sometimes the byproduct of it is that some people are inconvenienced and in situations like that, the innocent should be fully compensated. We can't shy away from taking action because of some stupid ticker tape that allows somebody to commit an act that has greater consequences than had someone simply been searched to begin with.

Also I haven't mentioned entering anybodies homes, we were discussing being stopped on the street because you've done something to look suspicious, or at least that's what I thought.
Click to expand...
You're not allowed to say 'One example doesn't mean anything.' when the police deems black people 6 times as suspicious as white people and brown people twice as suspicious.
 
Not to mention it's the outright dumbest approach to crime reduction. You reduce crime by solving the issues that lead people to crime not by being heavy handed.
 
You can't question or search me because I'm black?

Zarlak's right, if there's racism from the police that should be dealt with as the problem. Leaving the racism and stopping the police doing anything isn't a solution.
 
Silva said:
You're not allowed to say 'One example doesn't mean anything.' when the police deems black people 6 times as suspicious as white people and brown people twice as suspicious.
Click to expand...

You are delving into a very specific subsection of an overall argument, one that merits its own discussion and action. This conversation began apparently as peoples rights as a whole which is what I'm talking about. Abuse of power is another issue altogether that should be tackled separately. Ideals that apply to everybody shouldn't be changed by this. The issue is not the ideal to begin with, it's the fact that the application is being misused.
 
Silva said:
Not to mention it's the outright dumbest approach to crime reduction. You reduce crime by solving the issues that lead people to crime not by being heavy handed.
Click to expand...

No, you reduce crime by doing both. Solving the issues that lead people to crime does not solve the crime that is happening out there right now. It solves the crime that happens in the future.
 
Zarlak said:
No, you reduce crime by doing both. Solving the issues that lead people to crime does not solve the crime that is happening out there right now. It solves the crime that happens in the future.
Click to expand...
It's not effective at all though:

● Searches appear to have only a limited direct disruptive impact on crime by intercepting those going out to commit offences. Based on the British Crime Survey, it is estimated that searches reduced the number of ‘disruptable’ crimes by (v) just 0.2% in 1997. Equivalent figures for recorded crime range from 0.6% to 2.3% for 1998/9. However, less is known about their localised effects in relation to areas specifically targeted by the police.

http://www.westmidlands-pcc.gov.uk/...s_and_searches_on_crime_and_the_community.pdf
 
Zarlak said:
It doesn't really matter if they're choosing to engage in an activity. The principle is the same. They're choosing to do something and I am choosing to stop them from doing it on no factual basis simply on my feeling of suspicion.

Also you're either severely misunderstanding me or you're exaggerating. I suggested that police can stop anyone that they deem suspicious. That obviously eliminates the notion of shits and giggles. Also one slight thing does not mean that I am proposing a police state. I'm sure you're well aware that a police state would involve a lot of other things that I'm not suggesting. Let's not leap to extremes.

It is in my opinion perfectly fair that if a police man deems somebody to be acting suspiciously, that they can seek to establish whether they're correct or not. This approach is how it's always been done. It happens here in the UK, it happens in the US, it doesn't mean a police state at all that's a huge exaggeration. Many times it's justified and it works, some times it's not and somebody is inconvenienced for all of 2 minutes. Other times, drug dealers are arrested, people with firearms are arrested etc etc.
Click to expand...


How can you honestly say you trust police to only stop people they legitimately deem suspicious? How can you honestly say you don't think there will be a racial issue? This is far from a slight thing. It is a massive expansion of powers given to the police over the private citizen. It is an issue people fought and died for, for hundreds of years. You are leaping to extremes. There are legal standards for police required to stop people. Reasonable suspicion is a quite low standard and people get stopped all the time. But to search people, a much higher standard - probable cause - is applied. You are proposing to throw out hundreds of years of jurisprudence. I reiterate, you are the one being extreme.


Zarlak said:
I have thought it through. One example doesn't mean anything. There are likely thousands of examples of it being the right thing to do. As Raoul said, sometimes the byproduct of it is that some people are inconvenienced and in situations like that, the innocent should be fully compensated. We can't shy away from taking action because of some stupid ticker tape that allows somebody to commit an act that has greater consequences than had someone simply been searched to begin with.

Also I haven't mentioned entering anybodies homes, we were discussing being stopped on the street because you've done something to look suspicious, or at least that's what I thought.
Click to expand...

Raoul's argument is not on good legal or constitutional grounds. His argument rests on the idea that the realities of the world have progressed faster than legal system and we don't yet have a good way to deal with international terrorists and the capability to kill them remotely. Which I don't agree with as a good justification but it is a reasonable stance. I'm confident @Raoul would see similar issues that I do in the drastic measures you are proposing.

What if police are walking on the street and they see something "suspicious" in a backyard or through a window. Can they enter and search?
 
Whereas removing the reason for crime is effective. Is someone going to deal drugs if they can pay for their education without it? (or do whatever they need the money for without it)
 
712 said:
You can't question or search me because I'm black?

Zarlak's right, if there's racism from the police that should be dealt with as the problem. Leaving the racism and stopping the police doing anything isn't a solution.
Click to expand...

The police can do things, once the situation satisfies well established legal criteria. If you look into it you will find that "reasonable suspicion" is a very low standard for police to stop someone. But to actually search them or their property, police need a warrant based on "probable cause" which Zarlak is proposing to do away with.
 
Silva said:
It's not effective at all though:

● Searches appear to have only a limited direct disruptive impact on crime by intercepting those going out to commit offences. Based on the British Crime Survey, it is estimated that searches reduced the number of ‘disruptable’ crimes by (v) just 0.2% in 1997. Equivalent figures for recorded crime range from 0.6% to 2.3% for 1998/9. However, less is known about their localised effects in relation to areas specifically targeted by the police.

http://www.westmidlands-pcc.gov.uk/...s_and_searches_on_crime_and_the_community.pdf
Click to expand...

Do you have up to date statistics that would be relevant?
 
Zarlak said:
Do you have up to date statistics that would be relevant?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I forgot that 1997 was in the dark ages and everything is a million times more effective now.

Do you have anything to suggest that stop and search is anything other than an invasion of a person's reasonable expectations of privacy?
 
Eboue said:
The police can do things, once the situation satisfies well established legal criteria. If you look into it you will find that "reasonable suspicion" is a very low standard for police to stop someone. But to actually search them or their property, police need a warrant based on "probable cause" which Zarlak is proposing to do away with.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that to satisfy your criteria for probably cause, allows a crime to be committed in the meantime that would have bigger consequences than had police been allowed to do their job and prevent it. It's ticker tape for the sake of people being able to say 'woo you can't do shit to me, suck it.' IMO the temporary inconvenience is far outweighed by the one time that it's justified and prevents something more serious.

The issue of police targeting black people over white people is a completely separate issue in application rather than the theory itself.

Eboue said:
How can you honestly say you trust police to only stop people they legitimately deem suspicious? How can you honestly say you don't think there will be a racial issue? This is far from a slight thing. It is a massive expansion of powers given to the police over the private citizen.
Click to expand...

The issue of police targeting black people over white people is a completely separate issue in application rather than the theory itself.

Also I'm not proposing to get rid of anything. This is how things are currently done, it looks like it's you that's proposing change and not me?
 
Silva said:
Sorry, I forgot that 1997 was in the dark ages and everything is a million times more effective now.

Do you have anything to suggest that stop and search is anything other than an invasion of a person's reasonable expectations of privacy?
Click to expand...

To suggest that the police force haven't come a long way since 1997 is a bit of an insult. In 1998 the police force were deemed institutionally racist. As such, any figures from that time will likely reflect this. So yes, things are a lot more effective now and going by your own logic, if it's just the same now as it was in 1997 then you should be able to show this.
 
Eboue said:
No, it isn't. Not in the US. (Which this thread is about) Sorry to be dismissive but you need to look into this more.
Click to expand...

Except, it is because there have been numerous arguments over this very issue occurring in the US. Perhaps legally it's not, but in practice it is. Also there is a whole other part to me post that you could address.

I really can't understand why you would prefer that the opportunity to inflict irreversible damage through crime should be allowed, when it could be avoided simply by allowing the police to satisfy their suspicion - and on a side note, deal with any misuse of this application as a separate issue.
 
Zarlak said:
It is my opinion that to satisfy your criteria for probably cause, allows a crime to be committed in the meantime that would have bigger consequences than had police been allowed to do their job and prevent it. It's ticker tape for the sake of people being able to say 'woo you can't do shit to me, suck it.' IMO the temporary inconvenience is far outweighed by the one time that it's justified and prevents something more serious.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's to protect constitutional rights generations fought and died for. If you can't understand this, you need to read your history. It's like when people say someone "got off on a technicality". No, they got off on their constitutional rights.
 
Zarlak said:
Except, it is because there have been numerous arguments over this very issue occurring in the US. Perhaps legally it's not, but in practice it is. Also there is a whole other part to me post that you could address.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Watch any police tv show ffs, do you see McNulty barging down doors because he's confident there are drugs in there? No, he's got to get a warrant based on probable cause.
 
Zarlak said:
To suggest that the police force haven't come a long way since 1997 is a bit of an insult. In 1998 the police force were deemed institutionally racist. As such, any figures from that time will likely reflect this. So yes, things are a lot more effective now and going by your own logic, if it's just the same now as it was in 1997 then you should be able to show this.
Click to expand...
Sure, here's a more recent one:
Over a million stop and search encounters have been recorded every year since 2006; 1 but only 9% of these led to an arrest in 2011/12. Statistics also showed that members of black and minority ethnic groups were stopped and searched more than white people (compared to the resident population). 2 Whilst there is strong public debate about the disproportionate use of the powers on certain groups, there is surprisingly little attention paid by either the police service or the public to how effective stop and search powers are in reducing or detecting crime.
http://www.hampshire.police.uk/internet/asset/72fda666-af89-4f8f-a3b5-29480af7ccbH/Item 6 - HMIC.pdf
 
Eboue said:
No, it isn't. Watch any police tv show ffs, do you see McNulty barging down doors because he's confident there are drugs in there? No, he's got to get a warrant based on probable cause.
Click to expand...

We haven't discussed barging down any doors. I've seen plenty of people stopped and searched before. It's happened to me. It happens to people going through customs in your country based on suspicion alone. It happens on the street when somebody thinks that you're acting suspiciously, changing eye contact, trying to hide something, changing your behaviours etc. It happens everywhere.
 
Zarlak said:
We haven't discussed barging down any doors. I've seen plenty of people stopped and searched before. It's happened to me. It happens to people going through customs in your country based on suspicion alone. It happens on the street when somebody thinks that you're acting suspiciously, changing eye contact, trying to hide something, changing your behaviours etc.
Click to expand...

Zarlak buddy, I like you but you don't know what you are talking about. Customs, yes obviously. Walking down the street, not so much.
 
Zarlak said:
We haven't discussed barging down any doors. I've seen plenty of people stopped and searched before. It's happened to me. It happens to people going through customs in your country based on suspicion alone. It happens on the street when somebody thinks that you're acting suspiciously, changing eye contact, trying to hide something, changing your behaviours etc. It happens everywhere.
Click to expand...
This sounds more like someone realising they're going in the wrong direction than someone committing an offence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.