What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Monday Night Fight Night

Re: Monday Night Fight Night

FreshFish said:
One minor, technical point: stop, question, and frisk is constitutional, according to SCOTUS. They laid out strict and limited rules under which it is acceptable.




The NY City judge who tried to rule otherwise* was slapped down hard by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, and was removed from jurisdiction over the case because of her obvious and publicly-stated anti-police bias. The Appeals Court gave clear indication that they'd overrule her on appeal. Then there was an election and the new mayor decided to drop the appeal that they otherwise would have won.

* Her ruling was not that stop, question, and frisk itself was unconstitutional, she "merely" ruled that the way NYC was applying the rule was unconstitutional because, in her opinion, a disproportionate number of minorities was being stopped. However, it appears that the number of minorities being stopped was indeed proportionate to the number of minorities who were committing crimes out of the population as a whole.
Click to expand...

That last line is complete and utter bulls_it. It's a cute attempt to frame a statistic that says something very different. Minorities are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to be convicted of more serious charges for the same crime than whites.
 
Re: Monday Night Fight Night

As for the rest of the post, I have no idea if that's true or not. I'll leave that to the legal minds.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
As for the rest of the post, I have no idea if that's true or not. I'll leave that to the legal minds.
Click to expand...

The fact that he is downplaying a Federal District Judge by calling her a NY City judge as though she's on the same level as Harry Stone from Night Court should tell you enough.

Edit: oh for fark's sake, he's citing Rudy farking Giuliani as his support?

Obvious troll is obvious.
 
Last edited:
Re: Monday Night Fight Night

dxmnkd316 said:
That last line is complete and utter bulls_it. It's a cute attempt to frame a statistic that says something very different. Minorities are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to be convicted of more serious charges for the same crime than whites.
Click to expand...

Despite this being quoted from the WSJ editorial by Giulliani, it is pretty accurate. I knew this before and I don't live in NYC. I'm not certain if Holt had a complete grip on it or not.

Judge Schiendlin was in fact removed from the case by the appellate court for "the appearance of impropriety", specifically because from interviews she gave one might reasonably conclude she was biased toward the plaintiffs. At issue wasn't the so called "Terry stops" which are legal everywhere and are codified in many state's laws, but rather NYC PD's implementation of stop and frisk and whether it was racially biased in the way they were doing it. Schiendlin concluded it was, but then again, she was essentially removed for demonstrating bias towards that conclusion already, which makes it all awfully muddy. NYC did indeed elect a new mayor and dropped the appeal as Trump claimed.

The thing about the racial bias is that the statistics that NYC was prepared to use weren't based on conviction rates or arrests of minorities as you criticize here. It was in fact based on crime victim statements which showed that "Eighty-three percent of the suspects reported by crime victims were black and Hispanic" and that "there’s a close correlation between the demographics of the people the officers have stopped and the persons having been reported as having committed crimes" by victims. That method would seem more likely to remove most of the perceived or real arrest and conviction bias on the part of authorities.
 
Wisko McBadgerton said:
Despite this being quoted from the WSJ editorial by Giulliani, it is pretty accurate. I knew this before and I don't live in NYC. I'm not certain if Holt had a complete grip on it or not.

Judge Schiendlin was in fact removed from the case by the appellate court for "the appearance of impropriety", specifically because from interviews she gave one might reasonably conclude she was biased toward the plaintiffs. At issue wasn't the so called "Terry stops" which are legal everywhere and are codified in many state's laws, but rather NYC PD's implementation of stop and frisk and whether it was racially biased in the way they were doing it. Schiendlin concluded it was, but then again, she was essentially removed for demonstrating bias towards that conclusion already, which makes it all awfully muddy. NYC did indeed elect a new mayor and dropped the appeal as Trump claimed.

The thing about the racial bias is that the statistics that NYC was prepared to use weren't based on conviction rates or arrests of minorities as you criticize here. It was in fact based on crime victim statements which showed that "Eighty-three percent of the suspects reported by crime victims were black and Hispanic" and that "there’s a close correlation between the demographics of the people the officers have stopped and the persons having been reported as having committed crimes" by victims. That method would seem more likely to remove most of the perceived or real arrest and conviction bias on the part of authorities.
Click to expand...

She was removed from the case because she gave interviews after her initial ruling, which was stupid to do on her part but hardly implicates the ruling itself since it had already been made. What the interviews did was prevent it from going back to her on remand.

And the fact remains that she found NYC's practice to be unconstitutional, and that decision was not overturned.
 
Last edited:
Re: Monday Night Fight Night

unofun said:
Obvious troll is obvious.
Click to expand...


Let's make sure we understand you: are you saying that SCOTUS did not issue a ruling called Terry v Ohio?

Perhaps you are saying that, although SCOTUS did issue Terry v Ohio, that it did not declare stop and frisk to be constitutional? Gee, the ACLU seems to disagree with you....I thought you lawyers were supposed to be familiar with Supreme Court precedents, no?

http://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/terry-v-ohio

In June 1968, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and set a precedent that allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals without probable cause for an arrest, providing that the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are saying that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not rebuke Judge Sheindlin and remove her from the case?

The New York Times reported otherwise:

That decision and the remedies the judge ordered were stayed by the panel’s Oct. 31 decision, and the new ruling, by the same panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, does not lift that stay. That means Judge Scheindlin’s rulings remain blocked unless, for example, the city’s appeal is withdrawn, a step Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has promised to take after he is sworn in on Jan. 1.

But in the opinion issued late Wednesday, the three-judge panel seemed eager to explain its terse Oct. 31 order, in which it bluntly declared that Judge Scheindlin “ran afoul” of the judicial code of conduct by appearing to steer the stop-and-frisk litigation to her docket in 2007 and by giving press interviews while the case was pending. The judge’s actions had compromised “the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation,” the panel had said.

The panel did not back away from its earlier conclusion that certain actions by the judge related to how the stop-and-frisk lawsuit ended up before her would lead “a reasonable observer” to “conclude that the appearance of impartiality had been compromised.” Those actions, combined with her press statements, the panel said, could lead such an observer to “question the impartiality of the judge.”
Click to expand...

So the only basis for your complaint is that, because my only mistake was to mis-identified which kind of court the judge presided in, that nothing else was correct? Wow, I thought lawyers had the ability to think and reason and do research. Maybe only some of them, eh?
 
Re: Monday Night Fight Night

unofan said:
She was removed from the case because she gave interviews after her initial ruling, which was stupid to do on her part but hardly implicates the ruling itself since it had already been made. What the interviews did was prevent it from going back to her on remand.

And the fact remains that she found NYC's practice to be unconstitutional, and that decision was not overturned.
Click to expand...

Stop it your facts are ruining his point :p
 
FreshFish said:
Let's make sure we understand you: are you saying that SCOTUS did not issue a ruling called Terry v Ohio?

Perhaps you are saying that, although SCOTUS did issue Terry v Ohio, that it did not declare stop and frisk to be constitutional? Gee, the ACLU seems to disagree with you....I thought you lawyers were supposed to be familiar with Supreme Court precedents, no?

http://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/terry-v-ohio



Perhaps you are saying that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not rebuke Judge Sheindlin and remove her from the case?

The New York Times reported otherwise:



So the only basis for your complaint is that, because my only mistake was to mis-identified which kind of court the judge presided in, that nothing else was correct? Wow, I thought lawyers had the ability to think and reason and do research. Maybe only some of them, eh?
Click to expand...

Stop and frisk:Terry stops::checking from behind:body checking

Just because body checking is legal in hockey doesn't mean all forms and variations of it are legal. In fact, some are explicitly illegal.

Just because police are allowed to perform Terry stops under certain conditions doesn't mean all programs where police search a suspect for weapons are constitutional. In fact, some are explicitly forbidden by the 4th and 14th Amendments.

But go ahead, keep drinking the kool-aid.
 
Last edited:
Re: Monday Night Fight Night

dxmnkd316 said:
That last line is complete and utter bulls_it. It's a cute attempt to frame a statistic that says something very different. Minorities are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to be convicted of more serious charges for the same crime than whites.
Click to expand...

Regular people who live in minority communities in NYC are the people who were asking the police to engage in stop and frisk in order to make those communities safer. Perhaps you are annoyed by the way I tried to phrase that observation; your answer is not quite responding to the fact that the residents of minority communities were supportive of stop and frisk because it reduced gun-related crime in their neighborhoods. Criminals stopped carrying guns as a result of the program.


One really weird part of this setup is that gun control advocates say we have to get illegal guns off the streets, and stop, question, and frisk has plenty of empirical evidence to show that it works in getting illegal guns off the streets. Yet gun control advocates seem really silent on that last part. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top