Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Federal court blocks judge's ruling against NYC's stop and frisk

  1. #1

    Default Federal court blocks judge's ruling against NYC's stop and frisk

    NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed the judge from the case.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the decisions of Judge Shira Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.

    The judge had ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in the way it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people. The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and training program associated with it.

    The appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on the requested stay.

    The appeals court said the judge needed to be removed from the case because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality in part because of a series of media interviews and public statements responding publicly to criticism of the court.

    The judge had ruled that police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with the stop-and-frisk program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras in some precincts where most stops occur.

    The stop-and-frisk tactic has been criticized by civil rights advocates.

    Stop-and-frisk has been around for decades in some form, but recorded stops increased dramatically under the administration of independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four men, all minorities, and became a class action case.

    Supporters of changes to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program say the changes will end unfair practices, will mold a more trusted and effective police force and can affect how other police departments use the policy. Opponents say the changes would lower police morale but not crime, waste money and not solve a broader problem of a police force under pressure after shrinking by thousands of officers during the last decade.

    The judge noted she wasn't putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court...p-frisk-policy



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Of course they did.

    Can't have one uppity judge enforcing the bill of rights or any such nonsense.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WM_in_MO View Post
    Of course they did.

    Can't have one uppity judge enforcing the bill of rights or any such nonsense.
    Notice how the judge is even rotten herself.

  5. #4

    Default

    The judge noted she wasn't putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice, which is constitutional,
    Of course it is.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Of course it is.
    Right. Under what constitution? (I recognize your implied /sarc)
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  7. #6

    Default

    The judge noted she wasn't putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Of course it is.
    That was the key line. The Judge never used the correct reasoning.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  8. #7

    Default

    The mask is finally slipping all the way off. It won't be long until the majority realize there is no true justice to be had at the hands of the state. Unfortunately, that'll be when it's too late.

  9. #8

    Default

    The judge noted she wasn't putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.
    Supporters of changes to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program say the changes will end unfair practices, will mold a more trusted and effective police force and can affect how other police departments use the policy. Opponents say the changes would lower police morale but not crime, waste money and not solve a broader problem of a police force under pressure after shrinking by thousands of officers during the last decade.
    So, it doesn't look like this is anything but a bunch of PD pep-clubbery all around ...
    Supporters of the changes want "stop and frisk" to be more effective & efficient.
    Opponents of the changes want "stop and frisk" to be more effective & efficient.
    God save us from ALL these "efficiency" advocates. A pox on both their houses!

    It's "having a 'more trusted police force'" vs. "propping up 'police morale'" ... SMGDH.
    Tom Woods's "three-by-five index card of approved opinion" is on full display here.






Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-03-2013, 03:24 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-02-2013, 05:24 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 09:07 PM
  4. Ray Kelly: 'Stop-and-Frisk' Ruling Risks Reversing Downward Trend of Violent Crime in NYC
    By Neil Desmond in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2013, 08:41 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2013, 08:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •