Subway rider with AK-47 arrested

[phillydeveloper]

No one took stop and frisk off the table. They just wanted it to be practiced legally. You know, how it's supposed to be under the constitution. Also, Williams wasn't the lead plaintiff. Facts are important in a discussion. Williams was seriously injured by police officers and didn't want to be involved in the case. He decided to do so because it was the right thing to do. Simply stating things on a blog doesn't make them true.

[ArcticSplash]

You did notice that the DA that piece is criticizing is Lynn Abraham, didn't you?

Lynn also made it a habit to not prosecute self-defenders including those without valid LTCF's on their person.

But then PPD reaction that's negative is usually when they find and discover a gun and then on stopping, find no valid LTCF. It doesn't happen when they arrive on the scene to stare at a dead body and the self-defending shooter standing there waiting for cops to arrive with the shooter and witnesses's stories all lining up.

[BarryG]

As dumb as this was, septa transit police did their job. They were waiting for him getting off at fairmount and made the arrest. I'm glad some things in this city actually work.

You blog about septa but apparently did not read this story at all. They stopped the train at fairmount and searched the train for the guy. He was on his way to fern rock.

[seand]

No one took stop and frisk off the table. They just wanted it to be practiced legally. You know, how it's supposed to be under the constitution. Also, Williams wasn't the lead plaintiff. Facts are important in a discussion. Williams was seriously injured by police officers and didn't want to be involved in the case. He decided to do so because it was the right thing to do. Simply stating things on a blog doesn't make them true.

OK fair enough. Sherriff Williams was a plaintiff and certainly the highest profile witness.
City's 'stop and frisk' policy draws lawsuit - Philly.com

The gist of his testimony in the article above sounds to me like "the officers were very rude to me so therefore there should not be searches like this" which to me is a weak argument.

The result of the case was a new policy that drastically reduced the number of weapons searches being undertaken. Officially the finding of the court decision was that searches are only allowed under reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, including carrying a weapon. But that was always the official policy. The whole point of the approach is to increase the likelihood of being searched while carrying an illegal weapon so much that it becomes a strong disincentive to carry your illegal weapon around. It doesn't stop the people bound and determined to kill their foe, but it greatly reduces the number of shootings from random fights or chance encounters between X and Y who happen to have a pre-exisitng beef.
By, in practice, by greatly reducing the number of searches, there is now no real disincentive to carry and as result since the case was settled we have seen a marked rise in shootings of the "random fight" or "chance encounter" variety. Including that shooting last month of the 2-year-old girl at the crowded block in Logan where despite the street being flooded with people at the time of the shooting "noone saw anything".

[annie]

Including that shooting last month of the 2-year-old girl at the crowded block in Logan where despite the street being flooded with people at the time of the shooting "noone saw anything".

City, media are quick to blame stop-snitching culture in shooting

[raider.adam]

City, media are quick to blame stop-snitching culture in shooting

As a counter, I also do know the clam up does happen. Several years ago someone was shot in the street on my block. Long story short, it took about 2 months for the police to get a lead on who did it. The guy lived around the corner and yes, after he was arrested, people on the block told me they knew who it was. Of course the guy shot was from the suburbs trying to score some oxy and was setup, so not a local that was killed.

The cops said the way they got the info they needed was rounding up other local people for warrants and crimes and trading that for info.

[annie]

I wasn't trying to say it never happens but thought it was interesting that in this high-profile case it might not be warranted.

[raider.adam]

I wasn't trying to say it never happens but thought it was interesting that in this high-profile case it might not be warranted.

I think the no snitch culture has made it where people feel safe in assuming that is what is taking place by default. The article takes it to the other direction and seems to imply the no snitch culture is largely imaginary or greatly over exaggerated.

[seand]

The street was still blocked off. There were several there who reported ducking behind cars. Many of them probably just ducked and didn't get a good look at the shooter, but there is excellent chance someone saw something.

As the story says

“Stop snitching” may be a real problem for police, but it’s also a potential way to redirect responsibility.

I'm not asserting some grand conspiracy of silence that blames one community for silence and then uses that to argue that concern or police involvement is unwarranted. I brought it up because it appears to be one of these unpredictable eruptions of violence, taking down an innocent, that might have been avoided if only less people in this town were habitually carrying guns when they are not supposed to.

[phillydeveloper]

The result of the case was a new policy that drastically reduced the number of weapons searches being undertaken. Officially the finding of the court decision was that searches are only allowed under reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, including carrying a weapon. But that was always the official policy.

You're not naive enough to think that just because it's the official policy it was actually carried out in a lawful and effective manner? Simply put the policy was illegal and most legal minds agreed which is why the city settled so fast and revised the policy. Suspecting someone of carrying a firearm is a correct way to effectuate the policy. Suspecting someone of carrying a firearm or other illegal activity because of their race is not. I don't understand why this discussion even needs to be had in 2012.

[MizFormaldehyde]

Though it's kind of old news now...I do wonder what this guy was gonna do. Crazy mother****ers these days. Probably ready to take everybody out...or atleast somebody.

[eldondre]

You're not naive enough to think that just because it's the official policy it was actually carried out in a lawful and effective manner? Simply put the policy was illegal and most legal minds agreed which is why the city settled so fast and revised the policy. Suspecting someone of carrying a firearm is a correct way to effectuate the policy. Suspecting someone of carrying a firearm or other illegal activity because of their race is not. I don't understand why this discussion even needs to be had in 2012.

having an AK47 sticking out of your bag is probably enough, stop and frisk doesn't seem terribly relevant to this guy, who already fired shots at his gf and got off once because witnesses failed to show.

[seand]

You're not naive enough to think that just because it's the official policy it was actually carried out in a lawful and effective manner? Simply put the policy was illegal and most legal minds agreed which is why the city settled so fast and revised the policy. Suspecting someone of carrying a firearm is a correct way to effectuate the policy. Suspecting someone of carrying a firearm or other illegal activity because of their race is not. I don't understand why this discussion even needs to be had in 2012.

The policy was always conditional on suspicion of carrying a firearm or illegal activity from day 1. More searches generally means significantly less young men dying. If you value a sense of less (un-proven) racial profiling over young men black men living to adulthood, I could see how you would think it was a good decision. If on the ballance of things more unnecessary deaths is not that important to you, yes it was a good decision.

[SeptaBlog]

You blog about septa but apparently did not read this story at all. They stopped the train at fairmount and searched the train for the guy. He was on his way to fern rock.

Does it make a difference if they stopped the train at Fairmount or he got off on his own will? The fact that matters was they got him after a tip and searched the train. If he got off at fairmount they would have gotten him anyway.