So it has started

[detbuch]

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]

Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk," per se, as in the Terry decision, is unconstitutional.

Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1115829][Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating mannerAgree and that is why I added something about racially discriminatory. I think a cop had a tape of a supervisor saying they should use it to target Blacks. I also think that it was never appealed bc NY stopped S&F. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk," per se, as in the Terry decision, is unconstitutional.

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

i think your last statement is the key - it is tough to isolate the cause in a drop in crime.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115831][QUOTE=detbuch;1115829]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?

i think your last statement is the key - it is tough to isolate the cause in a drop in crime.

Actually, my first statement, which you left out in your reply, is the key: "Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision."

What was supposedly unconstitutional in the case to which you referred is that it targeted a specific race, not that the practice itself is unconstitutional.

As I said, the "broken windows" policy of Giuliani as it is practiced in Detroit cannot be proved to be racist toward minorities since the overwhelming percent of its population is minority. And, after Detroit started using the practice, which includes stop and search, crime went down. You may dispute that the practice is the cause, but you cannot prove it either way. But it is not unconstitutional on the grounds of racial discrimination (unless it targeted Whites) so what's wrong with the policy? If Chicago could do it in a way as not to target blacks, I presume it would be OK. But that would be difficult, if not impossible, since the crime is preponderantly in the Black communities.