Nutter stop and frisk - Page 8 - PhillyBlog

dr_gingivitis · #71 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romano

I don't know why people are responding to this guy, he's obviously a troll trying to stir things up.

The actual topic deserves a serious conversation, something that's not going to happen with a clown throwing around all sorts of racial epithets and baseless accusations.

True, but a sizable population probably shares his opinion on this issue.

Rex · #72 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr_gingivitis

I'll take the camera and police officer on my block, I'm not doing anything to be worried about, so why worry?

I've been stopped and frisked by police before, I had done nothing wrong and knew it, but I matched the description of someone who had been stealing bikes, and I happened to be cutting across a desolate area in a hurry when the cops rolled up. But again, I had done nothing wrong.

It didn't feel that bad, maybe what you mean to say is that being frisked when you're up to no good is the worst feeling in the world. I've got think that getting shot feels a lot worse, and considering that more then one out of every 1000 residents of Philly got shot just last year, I'll vote for the frisking. I agree that it won’t work by itself, Safe Streets proved that, but it was successful for a limited period. We need to work on some long term solutions, but I’d rather do that while it’s a little safer to walk the streets.

That's not fair and not right. You have no reason to suggest that I am a criminal. I can't explain to you why you feel the way you feel in a situation, and if you don't mind being stopped and frisked, you don't mind. But I am telling you now, I do. I think it is scary, and infuriating.

I don't like the cameras either. "I'm not doing anything wrong...." yeah, Yet. just because you believe the laws currently in place are fair and just, and you abide by them, doesn't mean they will remain so forever. The law is a straight line, the "right thing to do" is wavy. There will always be gaps between what is illegal and what is immoral, and what is legal and what is right. There are behaviors that are currently legal that are nonetheless immoral, and there are behaviors that are currently illegal that are nonetheless moral. This will always be the case, because the law is Good, but it is not perfect and will never be perfect.

The practically terrifying thing about the cameras is that they can stay there, even once the neighborhood is nice, and when the technology is better, they can scan people's faces, and then Any One, wanted for Any Thing, can't walk the streets undisguised, without fear.
Why can't banks and credit card companies look for debtors? Why can't the government look for eccentricts and troublemakers?

It's not science fiction. Let me tell you about a place called Germany, in a time called 1938. People are really scary. The larger society can turn against a minority population at any time. That tendency will always be there, why put the technology in their hands to make it all the more dangerous if that does happen?

dr_gingivitis · #73 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex

That's not fair and not right. You have no reason to suggest that I am a criminal. I can't explain to you why you feel the way you feel in a situation, and if you don't mind being stopped and frisked, you don't mind. But I am telling you now, I do. I think it is scary, and infuriating.

Read my post, I wasn't responding to you and never implied that you (or anyone else on this thread) were a criminal.

Rex · #74 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romano

I don't know why people are responding to this guy, he's obviously a troll trying to stir things up.

The actual topic deserves a serious conversation, something that's not going to happen with a clown throwing around all sorts of racial epithets and baseless accusations.

ummm... maybe you haven't been reading, but there is an actual conversation going on here. I am in it, dr. gingivitus is in it, i think hospitality girl weighed in, someone with brooklyn in the name...

yeah, the quality of kenzo's argumentation is wanting, but that doesn't disqualify him from being part of the conversation. [Dude, his name is Kenzo - have you met anyone from there? I am totally siked this guy can both read, and find the hole in the wall to plug his computer into] He believes what he writes. Are you going to ignore people because their idea are half baked? All of our ideas are half baked before they are challenged by others and forced to mature.

What's a troll anyway? someone with strong opinions and poorly thought out arguements? I don't mind trolls at all. I like them. They prompt people to respond, and then talk to each other. I had an interesting, productive time today, (on the board, not at work, ha) and I wouldn't have gotten into this conversation at all if Kenzo hadn't started whiling out on this thread.

dr_gingivitis · #75 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex

That's not fair and not right. You have no reason to suggest that I am a criminal. I can't explain to you why you feel the way you feel in a situation, and if you don't mind being stopped and frisked, you don't mind. But I am telling you now, I do. I think it is scary, and infuriating.

I don't like the cameras either. "I'm not doing anything wrong...." yeah, Yet. just because you believe the laws currently in place are fair and just, and you abide by them, doesn't mean they will remain so forever. The law is a straight line, the "right thing to do" is wavy. There will always be gaps between what is illegal and what is immoral, and what is legal and what is right. There are behaviors that are currently legal that are nonetheless immoral, and there are behaviors that are currently illegal that are nonetheless moral. This will always be the case, because the law is Good, but it is not perfect and will never be perfect.

The practically terrifying thing about the cameras is that they can stay there, even once the neighborhood is nice, and when the technology is better, they can scan people's faces, and then Any One, wanted for Any Thing, can't walk the streets undisguised, without fear.
Why can't banks and credit card companies look for debtors? Why can't the government look for eccentricts and troublemakers?

It's not science fiction. Let me tell you about a place called Germany, in a time called 1938. People are really scary. The larger society can turn against a minority population at any time. That tendency will always be there, why put the technology in their hands to make it all the more dangerous if that does happen?

I can't actively participate in the second part of that conversation. I have never had a fear of my police or my government, probably because I feel they are my servants. I understand that there is plenty of good reason for some segments of the population to hold a different opinion, and I can't really comment on it.

I understand the slippery slope theory, but to go from cameras on the street to Nazi Germany feels more like jumping off a cliff then slipping on a slope.

I applaud the defense of civil liberties, unfortunately I think desperate times call for desperate measures, and I think these are desperate times.

Rex · #76 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr_gingivitis

Read my post, I wasn't responding to you and never implied that you (or anyone else on this thread) were a criminal.

sorry, I thought you were... because I had said it was a terrible feeling to be frisked, and you said "maybe what you mean to say is that being frisked when you're up to no good is the worst feeling in the world," implying if one felt bad being frisked, it was because one was being frisked while doing something illegal. And since I felt bad being frisked, I must be up to no good. I hope you cen see why I would have thought that.
Although, now looking back over the thread, I see it was Kenzo that used the specific phrase "worst feeling in the world," which makes it seem like you are suggesting it was Kenzo that was up to "no good," and not me after all. Since now you say you are not suggesting he is a criminal, "no good" must not be the same as "illegal acts."

basilius · #77 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:29 PM

Are there any lawyers on Phillyblog that could weigh in on this (or have I missed them)?

My understanding is that police officers can stop a person and frisk them for weapons if they (the police) have a reasonable suspicion that person is armed and dangerous.

Is that the case in Philadelphia? If it is, then how does Nutter's policy change the current law? If it is only executive encouragement of a currently-legal practice then it doesn't seem to warrant the strong reaction to it.

Rex · #78 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr_gingivitis

I understand the slippery slope theory, but to go from cameras on the street to Nazi Germany feels more like jumping off a cliff then slipping on a slope.

I applaud the defense of civil liberties, unfortunately I think desperate times call for desperate measures, and I think these are desperate times.

These may very well be desperate times.

Nazi Germany is an illustration. It is pretty easy to look at an extreme situation and say, "yeah, that Could happen, but what are the chances it really Would happen?" The thing is, the chances are not so small. Germany is a clean and neat example, I like it because Germany was a modern western country, but there is also Darfur, and Bosnia and Russia and Cambodia and Hungry/ Romania..... People are crazy.

kenzodope · #79 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr_gingivitis

K Dope,
Those who fail to recognize that you can't have liberty without security are unrealistic ideologues.

We're illustrating how liberty without security reverts into anarchy.

But I'm not really so much interested in debating philosophy, I'm just interested in lowering the number of shootings per year (over 2000!) and getting some of the illegal guns of the street so that the law abiding residents of the city have some liberty.

Im for locking real criminals up rapists,pedophiles,murders,and violent stuff like that, but u.s.a locks up more people than any other country.Im very worried aout u.s turning into a surveilance police state.Thats not what americas about whatever happened to give me liberty or give me death.The medias acting like the people being shot are good choir boys maybe 3 innocent people a year are killed i feel for them but its just a slippery slope.

Hospitalitygirl · #80 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basilius

Are there any lawyers on Phillyblog that could weigh in on this (or have I missed them)?

My understanding is that police officers can stop a person and frisk them for weapons if they (the police) have a reasonable suspicion that person is armed and dangerous.

Is that the case in Philadelphia? If it is, then how does Nutter's policy change the current law? If it is only executive encouragement of a currently-legal practice then it doesn't seem to warrant the strong reaction to it.

It's the "targeted hot zones" overlay that has some in a lather over it.