It Turns Out Women Don't Like Being Randomly Groped by Cops

A front-page story in today's New York Times highlights the special humiliation inflicted on women who are detained and patted down by police under the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program. Male officers grope them, concentrating on "the waistband, armpit, collar and groin areas," and go through their purses, pulling out personal items such as tampons, birth control pills, and lacy underwear. "Yes, it’s intrusive," Inspector Kim Y. Royster tells the Times, "but wherever a weapon can be concealed is where the officer is going to search." Yet these searches almost never yield weapons.

The stops supposedly are justified by a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity, and the searches ostensibly are aiimed at protecting officers from hidden weapons they "reasonably" suspect may be present. Yet 46,784 stops of women last year yielded 3,993 arrests, suggesting that officers were wrong in suspecting criminal activity more than nine times out of 10. The hit rate for weapons was a lot worse: The Times reports that guns were found in 59 out of about 16,000 searches, or 0.37 percent of the time. (The numbers for men are similar.) How's that for reasonable?

A 22-year-old woman, Crystal Pope, tells the Times she and two female friends were frisked last year in Harlem Heights by two male officers who said they were on the trail of a rapist:

"They tapped around the waistline of my jeans," Ms. Pope said. "They tapped the back pockets of my jeans, around my buttock. It was kind of disrespectful and degrading. It was uncalled-for. It made no sense. How are you going to stop three females when you are supposedly looking for a male rapist?"

Another woman, 21-year-old Shari Archibald, says she was standing on the stoop of her building in Morris Heights one evening, retrieving her keys from her purse, when two male officers approached her, patted her down, and dug around in her purse:

The encounter was made worse by the number of people out on the street that night. “There were a lot of guys from the neighborhood outside," she said, "and here is this officer squeezing one of my sanitary pads in front of everyone."

One officer, she recalled, lifted up her long tank top and lightly brushed his hand over the elastic waist of her spandex leggings. They instructed her to pinch the shirt fabric between her breasts and yank at her bra.

“They asked me to snap my bra, to pull and shake it a bit, to see if anything fell out,” Ms. Archibald said.

"When officers conduct stops upon shaky or baseless legal foundations," the Times notes, "people of both sexes often say they felt violated." And "if a woman believes there is no legal basis for the frisk, [civil rights lawyer Andrea] Ritchie said, then she may feel that she is being groped simply for the officer’s sexual gratification." So when Inspector Royster insists the stops are not random, she may be telling the truth. Would a careful analysis find that shapely women are especially likely to be stopped and frisked?

More on stop and frisk here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    I remember one time I was riding my bicycle down the road and the cops stopped me. They said they were looking for someone in a military jacket. I was wearing a denim jacket. I knew better than to point that out though, I didn't feel like getting beaten up. So I handed them my ID so they could run me for warrants and let them search me. Better than getting beaten bloody and charged with assaulting a police officer.

  • Matrix||

    It's for the children! Submit!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Why the hell would anyone live in NYC?

  • Matrix||

    bagels.... and pizza. That's what I suspect.

  • MJGreen||

    If you're a white guy, it's not too terrible.

  • ||

    Ska answered this once: "Thin, slutty girls who buy their own drinks."

  • Bee Tagger||

    who said they were on the trail of a rapist
    ....
    It made no sense. How are you going to stop three females when you are supposedly looking for a male rapist?"

    Also, how can they be expected to operate on this man? He's their son!

  • Trespassers W||

    Subtle. Nice.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Would a careful analysis find that shapely women are especially likely to be stopped and frisked?

    I doubt it would matter. It's pretty obvious that this policy is unconstitutional but apparently there isn't any remedy available no matter how outrageous the state's agents' behavior.

  • Ice Nine||

    Crystal Pope for instance.

  • ||

    The NYPD is the biggest, baddest gang in New York. Why the hell would they ever stop doing whatever the fuck they want? Who the fuck is going to stop them? Seriously, they are a standing army with 35,000 officers, and Greater New York is their territory.

  • ||

    Everything you see belongs to me, to one degree or another. The beggars and newsboys and quick thieves here in Paradise, the sailor dives and gin mills and blind tigers on the waterfront, the anglers and amusers, the she-hes and the Chinks. Everybody owes, everybody pays. Because that's how you stand up against the rising of the tide.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Cyrus (from the Warriors) was going to stop them but got wasted. "Can you dig it?"

  • ||

    They're remaking that, you know. Tony Scott is doing it...and it will be in LA, not New York. I wonder if Walter Hill will be involved at all.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    I honestly don't know how that would work without that 70's kitsch. I mean a gang of baseball players with black and white war paint.

    It would be interesting to see what they keep/take out. Twitter as opposed to a pirate radio broadcast I guess.

  • SugarFree||

    It's all various obscure and indistinguishable sub-sub-genres of hipsters: Scarfs vs. PorkPie Hats vs. Capris.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    So the Bronys would get their own gang in this one?

  • SugarFree||

    Yes. And the "Can you dig it?" scene is in Redhook.

  • Brandybuck||

    Am projectile vomiting...

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Warriors come out and plaayy.

  • Christina||

    As much as it sucks to be a woman, I can only imagine how terrible it must be to be a black woman in a poor neighborhood.

  • Coeus||

    As much as it sucks to be a woman

    Maybe you should cut your hair and buy a prosthesis?

  • Jennifer||

    I'm at the point now where I fear the police more than I do the official criminals: if an Official Criminal attacks me, at least I have the legal right to either defend myself or try to escape. And the American court system doesn't operate under the de facto maxim "Anytime an Official Criminal's story contradicts that of his victim the victim MUST be lying." Dirty cops, by contrast, have carte blanche to assault any damn body they please, and unless a bystander happened to videotape the encounter, the courts ALWAYS assume the cops is telling the truth, despite the prevalence of "testilying."

  • ||

    then you are clearly a fool, if you "fear the police"

    jesus fucking christ, the ignorance it burns.

    and countless times, a story conflicts with the police, REASONABLE doubt is found and the person is found not guilty.

    have you ever even attended a trial? an actual trial, not a media account of one.

    plenty of cops have been fired, suspended, and/or prosecuted without video evidence.

    again, these are just blatant falsehoods you may want to believe, but are not supported by evidence.

  • Brandybuck||

    I don't blame them. It doesn't matter how few bad cops there are when the good cops refuse to police their own.

  • sloopyinca||

    then you are clearly a fool, if you "fear the police"

    Way to label people that don't share your view, Buckaroo. Perhaps the myriad stories of police abuse sans accountability have giver her pause to trust that cruiser in her rearview more than the lowrider Impala.

    again, these are just blatant falsehoods you may want to believe, but are not supported by evidence.

    Yes, Jennifer, please believe the words of a cop who has admitted he does not hold other officers as accountable as "civilians" before you believe your own two eyes.

    What a fucking tool.

  • Jennifer||

    you are clearly a fool, if you "fear the police"

    Can you actually refute my comment, though? "if an Official Criminal attacks me, at least I have the legal right to either defend myself or try to escape." And that's true -- if I'm strolling down the street and a random thug demanded to feel me up, I could legally either run away or -- if he laid hands on me anyway -- defend myself.

    But if that thug has a cop's badge, what then? What legal recourse would I have? What legal recourse do the low-income black women in this story have? Do they have the legal right to attempt to either escape, or slap the molester's hands away?

    No, they don't. Neither would I. Or are you going to pretend otherwise?

  • sloopyinca||

    But if that thug has a cop's badge, what then? What legal recourse would I have? What legal recourse do the low-income black women in this story have? Do they have the legal right to attempt to either escape, or slap the molester's hands away?

    You could report them to Internal Affairs and they could be investigated according to how their union contract was written (by the people whose political campaigns the cops financed).

    If that's not justice, I don't know what is. Right, Buckaroo?

  • ||

    I gotta go with Jennifer on this one Dunphy. I have attended a number of trials. Discovery is a joke, DA's lie their asses off and so do testifying cops. Bald-faced, blatant lies. These occurrences are not out of the norm. If the DA's office decides you should be prosecuted and you dont take a plea, they will do whatever it takes to convict. I have even seen judges in bench trials tell the defendant 'yes, I know you can beat this on appeal, but it will cost you another $ XXXX so just bite the bullet'.

    There are a lot of good cops out there, but one's chances of running into a bad one are pretty good, and when you do, your remedies are few or non-existent.

    Yes, cops are feared, and not for no reason.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm at the point now where I fear the police more than I do the official criminals

    For a lot of people, I think the risk is greater that they will suffer Bad Things at the hands of the cops than at the hands of criminals.

  • sarcasmic||

    The only reason I would ever call the police is to pick up the body.

    That's it.

  • Loki||

    The only reason I would ever call the police is to pick up the body.

    And then get charged with murder. Remember the approved protocol is to hide in a corner in a fetal position and pray the cops get there before the criminal kills/ ass rapes/ beats you within an inch of your life. And then, in the latter two cases, pray the cops don't go ahead and finish the job once they do arrive. Now, STOP RESISTING!

  • ||

    lol.

    troll-o-meter: .01

  • sloopyinca||

    Why do you say "troll-o-meter" when that is the prevailing opinion on here? ITFPAP(on reason)IC, the number of bad cops is small, but the number of other cops that enable their wanton disregard for the law is quite large and is growing thanks to their unions and the political lackeys they negotiate with (right after they finance their campaign).

    Did you ever stop to realize that you're the troll on this site? That maybe, just maybe, you're the asshead that comes on here to fuck with people because your life is so devoid of happiness? That you're the one who sits at home waiting for certain people to comment so you can throw a monkey-wrench into a thread because you have nobody to spend your time with except for other roid-raged cops...only, the gym isn't open 24/7? That you're the loser with a spittle-flecked computer screen and a keyboard that's been against the wall more times than a 19 year old black man in New York City? That you're the one who comes on here as often as you do because one can only masturbate to teen porn so many times a day before you're shooting blanks and, golly!, there's still another 6 hours efore my shift starts?

    Did you, Buckaroo?

  • Pip||

    Call from a pay phone some distance away.

  • Mr. Soul||

    from a what???

  • Ramjet||

    Hahahahahahaha. Luddite.

  • ||

    fortunately, normal people, the ones who make this country work, don't have the ridiculous fears you do and routinely call police.

    and the %age of incidents taht cops respond to that are even remotely questionable is a incredibly tiny percentage.

    the incidents of misconduct being even smaller

    again, i love threads like this, because it makes me realize how great this country is, and how deluded and fringe, the isolated anti-cop delusional bigot minority is.

  • R C Dean||

    You're missing a couple of things, dunphy,

    (1) Even if the incidents of misconduct are ridiculously low, that doesn't mean that they are lower than the risk of violent crime.

    (2) Many encounters with police that are not "misconduct" are nonetheless a Bad Thing for citizens.

  • R C Dean||

    To put it anecdotally:

    I have lived my entire life so far without being the victim of a crime.

    I have never done another person criminal harm, but I have had a number of encounters with police that were negative to some extent (ranging from wallet lightening up to highly unpleasant personal interactions, but no arrests or beatings so far).

    Given my history, which is probably typical to relatively favorable as far as police interactions go, what, exactly, is delusional about fearing the police more than criminals?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's not whether more cops are good than bad, Dunphy.

    It's that if one does have a run-in with a bad cop (a not remote chance in both my experience and through reading anecdotes on a near daily basis), there is virtually no chance for recourse, and absolutely no chance of NOT being fucked in real-time. One's chances are much greater dealing with a criminal than dealing with a cop with a grudge.

  • sloopyinca||

    Nice post, MLG. Now be prepared to be called a bigot, a liar or stupid.

    Oh, and be prepared to score a .001 on Buckaroo Banzai's troll-o-meter.

  • Gray Ghost||

    For a lot of people, I think the risk is greater that they will suffer Bad Things at the hands of the cops than at the hands of criminals.

    It's a unforeseen consequence of crime rates being so low. My own experience as a victim of property and violent crime is much rarer than my frequency of having cops grab my wallet (traffic violations). Accordingly, I'm more worried about the cops taking my stuff than I am about criminals doing so. So far, they've racked up a higher score.

    Anecdotally, I've batted about .500; douchebag authoritah types to guys doing a job. I think the former are more prevalent now than in the past, but I wouldn't swear to it. Most of the time, I'm happy to make it out of the encounter with everything that I had going into the encounter, so when that's the best you can do, I try to avoid them.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yet 46,784 stops of women last year yielded 3,993 arrests, suggesting that officers were wrong in suspecting criminal activity more than nine times out of 10.

    I have it on good authority that this is evidence of good policing.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    and how many of those 3993 were arrested via the old "trick them into breaking the law by publicly displaying their otherwise-not-quite-criminal doobie" tactic ? that gets em every time, amirite?

  • SugarFree||

    The stops supposedly are justified by a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity, and the searches ostensibly are aiimed at protecting officers from hidden weapons they "reasonably" suspect may be present.

    If your suspicious are reasonable, get a warrant. The two-ply 4th Ad.

  • Jerry on the road||

    If there is criminal activity, you can be stopped in order to reduce said criminal activity. But if there is reduced criminal activity, how are they still allowed to stop you? This doesn't make any sense.

  • ||

    rubbish. how do you get a warrant for somebody you see walking down the street or driving or whatnot. do you follow them while you call the judge at his house and verbally outline your PC?

    NYPD is egregiously violating the constitution

    but your logic is faulty.

    terry stops are, have been, and will be a constitutional investigation tool of law enforcement.

    NYPD's abuse of same is the problem.

  • jasno||

    How is it legal to squeeze a tampon as part of a terry stop? I thought they are authorized to conduct a cursory search for weapons, not a micro-analysis of your possessions?

  • T||

    Might have a knife hidden in there, jasno. Vagina dentata and all.

  • ||

    NYPD's stop and frisk program is an unconstitutional abomination

    that being said... this reason logic is faulty: . "Yet 46,784 stops of women last year yielded 3,993 arrests, suggesting that officers were wrong in suspecting criminal activity more than nine times out of 10"

    i've seen this logical error before. in brief, assuming a terry stop IS done with reasonable suspicion (which again, it appears NYPD is not doing and is blatantly violating the 4th amendment), it does not follow that if the stop doesn't RESULT in an arrest, that they were wrong in suspecting criminal activity.

    the reality is that whether or not there actually was criminal activity, the cops cannot arrest without evidence rising to probable cause. it doesn't follow logically that GIVEN criminal activity, that a terry stop WILL produce evidence that rises to the level of probable cause.

  • ||

    fwiw, many times for example in a terry stop, the intel gained at the time of the terry stop much later may result in probable cause given additional information found after the terry (witnesses located, etc.)

    but again, this is a basic logical error on reason's part.

    the original terry case (i suggest most people who opine on these issues have NEVER READ THE CASE TERRY v. ohio) involved some guys basically seen casing a business for burglary. at that point in time, it was never determined what exact evidentiary standard cops needed to investigate stuff. the PC for arrest was established, but not the standard for a stop.

    regardless, reason can criticize NYPD egregious stop and frisk program without resorting to the faulty logic that boils down to "if the cops didn't arrest person X that means person X was not engaged in criminal activity". what would be correct would be "if the cops didn't arrest person X that means the cops were unable to get sufficient EVIDENCE a the time of the stop that person X was thusly engaged" (or just had committed said crime, or been interrupted or whatnot.

    terry is a valuable tool for law enforcement. i've made well over 1,000 terry stops. it pisses me off that NYPD is ABUSING the constitution

    but it also irks me when such obvious analytical reasoning/logical errors are used in advance of a good cause.

  • Scooby||

    Bucky,

    Your obvious reasoning error is assuming that terry stops- your "valuable tool for law enforcement"- is somehow a reasonable search and seizure of a person just because the Nazgul gave their consent 40+ years ago.

    Just so you know, it pisses off the rest of us that you have ABUSED the Constitution over a thousand times, and seem proud of it.

  • sloopyinca||

    Where's Buckaroo Banzai today? I'd have expected him to come on here and call for the NYPD to be condemned for this (as opposed to prosecuted) and then spend comment after comment after comment explaining to us how it's justified because more blacks are reported (not necessarily convicted) of violent crime in NYC.

    Also, New York City is the cesspool of American law enforcement and government overreach. If I had to pick a city to fall into the ocean, it would be ahead of LA or San Francisco. Way the fuck ahead.

  • ||

    wow. a personal attack

    how utterly typical of you.

    and i find it wonderful the way you still clutch at trying to explain away the crime victimization survey. clearly, inner city minorities are lying about the race and gender of people who victimize them.

    new york city IS a cesspool of govt. overreach. and NYPD's stop and frisk is a fucking abomination

    and your obsession with bringing up past shit already discussed and making personal attacks because i have bitch slapped you so many times wit h the facts?

    sad as fuck, little man.

    jesus, you are like buzz lightyear. you are clearly deluded into thinking that all your internet spouting MATTERS.

    what you have you ever DONE to increase justice in this world? anything? note: circle jerking at reason.com doesn't increase justice or help anybody.

  • sloopyinca||

    and your obsession with bringing up past shit already discussed and making personal attacks because i have bitch slapped you so many times wit h the facts?

    Bringing up "past shit" is necessary so newcomers will know your stories are almost exclusively lies, exaggerations or distortions of the truth.

    What constitutes a "personal attack" with you? A little innocent name-calling? Boo-fucking-hoo, you pussy.

    And what's this bitch-slapping you are referring to? It would be news to me and everybody else on here. Do you have anybody on here to corroborate the claim?

    what you have you ever DONE to increase justice in this world? anything? note: circle jerking at reason.com doesn't increase justice or help anybody.

    I've been arrested standing up for free speech on more than one occasion. I would imagine that's doing more for justice than turning a blind eye while one of my co-workers beats the piss out of someone. Either way, inactivity does more for justice than enabling others to break the law (and peoples' bones) with impunity. I'm waaaaaay ahead of you just on that basis, Buckaroo.

  • ||

    btw, for those that are interested...

    terry v. ohio

    an interesting case. for those wishing to have an informed opinion...

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup.....01_ZS.html

  • ||

    btw, fortas' dissenting opinion (Included at the link) is excellent. for those opposed to terry stops as a constitutionally justified activity, i suggest reading the dissent in terry v. ohio for some well REASONED argumentation

  • ||

    No one gives a shit

  • ||

    the dissent in terry v. ohio.

    good ammunition for people opposed to terry stops. from a constitutional law, vs. derp derp angle...
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup.....01_ZD.html

  • ||

    from Fortas' dissent in Terry v. Ohio: To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. [p39] Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth, [n4] is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched.

    There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.

    Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    From yesterday:

    Define "reasonable suspicion" and then show us empirically how it is a consistent and uniformly applied criterion. Or admit "driving while sketchy" is a completely random and arbitrary reason (after the fact) to pull anybody over at any time FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON WHATSOEVER.

    Still waiting.

  • ||

    p brooks, it is not my burden to justify the terry stop doctrine.

    i linked to the case, which is decades old

    read it yourself.

    read the dissent

    i linked to that, too

    and like any intelligent person, come to your own conclusion

    descriptively speaking, terry v. ohio is the law of the land. i've made well over 1000 terry stops

    normatively speaking, imo under the 4th it is a REASONABLE seizure.

    one could argue under a more restrictive amendment, such as WA state's (my state's), that protect PRIVACY, that a higher standard would be needed.

    a good argument can be made.

    either way, the issue in NYC isn't - is terry v. ohio valid

    the issue is they are skirting the boundaries and violating the constitution

  • sloopyinca||

    and like any intelligent person, come to your own conclusion

    Yeah, Brooksie. And when your conclusion isn't the exact same as Mr Buckaroo Banzai here, he'll call you a bigot and pull out the old troll-o-meter, because he can't stand for people to make principled arguments that portray criminal behavior and/or enabling of such in a bad light when it happens at the hands of one of his fellow officers.

    one could argue under a more restrictive amendment, such as WA state's (my state's), that protect PRIVACY, that a higher standard would be needed.

    Your state may have some good laws, Buckaroo, but in practical application, they are sorely lacking in justice. Not only do several cases come immediately to mind, but so do the numerous investigations that have been ignored by your unions. Law Enforcement in your state might be more corrupt than NYC. And that's really saying something.

  • ||

    utter rubbish.

    disagreeing with the case law in terry v. ohio imo is reasonable.

    it's only unreasonable to claim it isn't the law of the land. not that it was wrongly decided by the scotus

    sloopy, get over your childish obsession and your bogus predictions about what i am going to say. you just keep making a fool of yourself. let the adults discuss issues.

    as for terry, the constitution never states an evidentiary standard FOR seizures. it only says that they must be 'reasonable'

    thus, the scotus ruled based on a # of factors (read the decision) and imo made a sound decision

    but intelligent analysts can disagree

    that's what adults can do. disagree without engaging in petty childish ranting.

    and GIVEN that terry v. ohio is the law of the land, and imo a constitutional and just standard, i will do my duty, serve the people of my community, and continue to act pursuant to terry, AS WELL AS MY STATE CASE LAW that places greater restrictions on me than the (imo lacking) federal constitution

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, I wasn't talking about Terry, per se. I was talking about the murders, violent altercations and coverups that seem to be par for the course in Washington specifically and police departments across the country in general.

    Does John T Williams ring a bell? How a bout your union policies that make sure cops don't have to turn over evidence when they commit a crime while on duty? Any word on the DoJ investigation that found a systematic disregard for the law when cops are being investigated?

    Face it: your state treats cops better than the rest of us. And you like it that way. You've said so yourself when questioned about double standards. So, fuck you.

  • ||

    sloopy, this meta shit is getting old

    there can't ever be a real discussion of the issue if you slip into 15 different previously discussed disagreements, etc.

    stop acting like a petulant child.

    what you think "seems" to be par for the course is anything but

    but again, i'm not going to get meta in every thread and rehash the exact same shit

    stipulated: you think there is a pervasive double standard, especially in WA (i always find this amusing since your state residents cede WAY WAY WAY more power to cops than we do in WA) that allows cops to routinely get away with shit that others can't, that cops do this shit with impunity and aren;'t called on it bla bla bla

    and of course i point to metric assloads of evidence to the contrary, numerous cases, the scores of police officers fired/forced to resign for all sorts of misconduct, criminal prosecutions of cops, the numerous instances of cops turning in other cops (against your blue wall 1970 bullshit), etc.

  • ||

    and for the 100th time, i am the first to admit there are double standards that favor cops. what you fail to recognize is there are also double standards the disfavor cops.

    just like you will accept as gospel a subjective doj report (without knowing the details) that claims SPD has a UOF problem but then will ignore the statistics that i have posted that show SPD has lower UOF rates per capita than other similar sized cities.

    but again, this is about NYPD and terry not WA state and your fantasies about how it's a haven for cops run amuck (tell that to the scores of cops fired every year for misconduct, not to mention two good friends of mine who were prosecuted for bogus on duty assaults (and both were acquitted)). both retained their jobs too. thanks to due process and arbitration

  • sloopyinca||

    and of course i point to metric assloads of evidence to the contrary, numerous cases, the scores of police officers fired/forced to resign for all sorts of misconduct, criminal prosecutions of cops, the numerous instances of cops turning in other cops (against your blue wall 1970 bullshit), etc.

    You may claim that a metric assload of the evidence exists, yet you never, ever provide links to it. That's why most of us on here think you're a liar.

    (tell that to the scores of cops fired every year for misconduct, not to mention two good friends of mine who were prosecuted for bogus on duty assaults (and both were acquitted)

    Again, citation required.

    Sorry, shit for brains. You don't get to make the claim that this exists without providing links when called out on it. You live off of anecdotal bullshit and hide behind your some absurd need to be anonymous. From now on, put up or shut the fuck up. Your made up claims are a fucking joke...just like your one example of a cop getting sentenced "4 to 5 times as long as a civilian would have been" turned out to be.

    You are a liar and we all know it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    terry v. ohio is the law of the land. i've made well over 1000 terry stops

    Based on what specific articulable reproducible indicator? Still waiting for a definition of reasonable suspicion which is anything other then some bogus tingling sensation.

    Fuck you, piggo.

  • sloopyinca||

    Here comes the troll-o-meter!

  • Coeus||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement