“Stop and search saves lives” UK TimesOnLine

[jody]

Stop and search saves lives

When the Conservatives proposed an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill in October 2007, the government rejected it, saying an increase in stop and search powers was not needed. Politically correct do-gooders, who have no idea what is going on down here on the ground, started to cry racism. They have told everyone who’ll listen that stop and search is an act of the devil. This view harks back to the 1980s when the circumstances on our streets were very different and police attitudes and race relations were poor.

Although we should not be complacent about race relations, I think it is fair to say the situation has moved on. So let’s start looking at the facts. Last year, 27 young people were killed on London’s streets, a lot of them black. All of them lost their lives to a gun or knife. Many more young men have been murdered outside the capital. The government’s response is to put metal detectors in our schools.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

One fact that is ignored in this debate is that the imposition of the rules controlling stop and search has actually done nothing to decrease the number of black and ethnic minority people stopped by the police. So to say that removing these rules will increase the numbers being stopped is plainly wrong. What matters is the right to search.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

If the police cannot be trusted to conduct stop and search on a fair basis, the public will soon find out and I will be the first in the queue to ask for an explanation. But as a black man, who has been searched and is very likely to be stopped under these new rules, I believe they will make the streets safer for us all.

Is this necessary to combat violent crime in inner cities?

[AndyTiedye]

1. No. And to Do that Here Would Violate the 4th Amendment

[jody]

2. Boston does not agree with you and I. See DU thread below

Boston PD preparing to ask homeowners if they can warrantlessly search homes for guns

[ManiacJoe]

3. Not the same thing.

The Boston program is a voluntary search, thus no 4th amendment violation.

The Britain program is not voluntary.

[jody]

4. Boston wants to let parents take away their children's 4th amendment rights. n/t

[pipoman]

5. Assuming that the parent is the owner/lessee

of the property the child doesn't have a say nor should they IMHO. To allow the minor child to have 4th amendment rights in the home of a parent precludes the parent from searching the room too...terrible idea.

OTOH I agree that the Boston law is dangerous. It is dangerous because most people don't understand the law, and ignorance of the law... I used to do a lot of criminal defense work. It is astounding how often and how many cases I worked which were due to a defendant agreeing to allow a search with a trunk full of weed, a glove box containing an illegal firearm, an ashtray full of roaches, a crack pipe in the console and an 8 ball between the seats. These officers are experts at asking permission to search, they practice and work a script which is known to work. They will use this power in ways most people would never guess including law makers.

[jody]

6. Thanks for your post. It clarified my misunderstanding of the problem. n/t

[SteveM]

7. No guns? Well, how 'bout that weed over here...

Both the War on Drugs and the War on Guns requires police to get inside people's homes and lives; one is the pretense for the other.