It doesn’t seem at all surprising that New York Mayor Bloomberg supports both his unconstitutional anti-Big Gulp paternalism and his now-overruled “Stop and Frisk” police state nastiness. It’s “for our good,” not any wise dedication to principle, that he wants to prevent us from drinking big sugary sodas, and “for the peace” that he wants police to stop and manhandle thousands, millions of “suspicious looking” people.
Both policies clearly impinge on individual liberty. The former, in that it prevents people from peacefully doing what they want. The latter, in that it treats innocent people as guilty, as “suspicious” just because of the way they appear — mainly their clothing choices, age, and (especially) race.
The judicial ruling is, in its own way, inspiring. “The goals of liberty and safety may be in tension, but they can coexist,” Judge Shira Scheindlin writes, adding that “the Constitution mandates it.” The ruling is also something of an education, for the judge notes that it’s not her business to make policing effective. It’s to make policing constitutional. Constitutional limits are necessary to rein in the potential of government to morph into tyranny.
And “stop and frisk” sure seems like tyranny to the people continually harassed on the streets. After all, the judge found that “the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent, not criminal.” Treating innocent citizens like criminals doesn’t inspire respect for the law.
And it sure is nice to see Bloomberg take another big gulp from a judicial ruling limiting his power.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
6 replies on “Stopping “Stop and Frisk””
…. And it sure is nice to see Herr Bloomberg take another big gulp from a judicial ruling limiting his power ….
And now to get the little fuhrer term limited.
Oh! … Hang on a minute …… He was?
Paul, let’s not be too supportive of the Honorable Judge, who, I think, has stuck her nose into an area (police work) that truly does not enter into her bailiwick! The persons who were stopped and frisked DID look suspicious by their dress and actions according to the judgement of the police. That many more than believable to Judge nosey face were African Amercan is the fault of their appearance and dress, not their race. The proof of the effectiveness of the policy of stop and frisk was that crime in New York was decidedly down. Please remember that appearances are deceiving. By supporting the judge’s ruling, you and others who support you, are in-as-much as accusing the entire New York Police Force of playing the race card with their stop and frisk actions.
I am waiting for Bloomberg to find a way to read peoples mind and demand people be inspected monthly to find if they are honest. That might be fun to see, but the political end of society must be the first to be inspected. I will be surprised if they do not opt out the the politicians FOR SAID INSPECTION JUST SAYIN.
I agree with Mr Seng about ” stop & frisk”– AND MANY IF NOT MOST OF THE LAW ABIDING PEOPLE (OF ALL RACES) IN THE AREAS WHERE IT WAS MOSTLY ENFORCED, APPROVED OF IT, AS WELL.
As Mr. Seng noted, CRIME WENT DOWN.
The Police Comissioner was welcomed by law abiding people in the minority neighborhoods, and was thanked for helping make their areas safer.
I agree the soda issue was ( and is) studdip, but stop and frisk reduced crime.
That si smart. and common sense.
i prefer the policeman or policewoman on the street to make the decsision-spur of the mkoment–not someone sitting in an air conditioned office, and lesiurely looking at something.
(See Zimmerman case-polcie on the scene felt that he acrtted in self defense; saw no reason to arrest him).
Treating innocent citizens like criminals doesn’t inspire respect for the law.
Hey, it happens every day at airports…and court houses…and legislative offices….
I will add my kudo to the judge. Loved the remark, “effectiveness not issue, constitutionality is”
And also agree with Pat as eventually treating all people as criminals lessens freedom and creates a docile people willing to be led.