Officer Nero found not guilty by Judge Barry Williams in bench trial.

Not sure what you mean here, it is my understand that Habeus Corpus (in the US system at least) is the federal government determining if a state's imprisonment of someone is valid or not.

Your understanding would be correct as far as I know. The 4th amendment rights of "certain groups" of people have been altered because pat downs are justified by their location in a so-called "high crime area." If someone like Freddy Gray had been convicted of drug trafficking or something (and had exhausted all appeals) he would not be able to argue that his imprisonment was unlawful; however, somebody arrested in the same way, but in a different place could. That is very much what Illinois v Wardlow and similar cases imply. Why would the search be found constitutional if they found a knife that is only illegal in that county, but not if they had found a controlled substance?

If you were wise, you wouldn't give police permission to search your car or house without a warrant. Not only can they damage your property, they could "plant" things or find things you didn't realize were illegal. The same goes for "stop and frisk" types of policies, or even Terry stops, which you seem to think are reasonable because some courts decided at one point they were constitutional.

Also, where's your evidence that it has done nothing to reduce crime?

These policies are part of a joint effort between the prisons, government, and police to incarcerate more people. At best, it's part of the Neo-Liberal agenda to keep criminals in prison with the idea that fewer people will be able to commit crimes when they are kept from society for longer, but at the cost of tax payer dollars. It sounds good on paper, but it doesn't work. While over the last 40 years it might look like these policies correlate with reduced crime, there are other factors that arguably have played a bigger role. Increasing the number and length of incarcerations also increase recidivism, broken families, and the cost is usually passed onto the convict which puts them in debt.

What do you mean by "certain groups"?

As you probably already suspect, here is where the argument breaks down and can go no further, and you win by default.

1 in every 3 Black males have been to prison, compared to 1 in 20 white males. I don't need to tell you this, I'm sure you know this and many other statistics floating around.

Maybe in your mind there is some reason why blacks are stopped and searched more often than whites even after factoring in wealth and education. It is not because they are more likely to find illegal stuff. It must either be that police are racist, or blacks are somehow objectively more suspicious.

I sincerely doubt that you want to extend the Terry stop to an equal number of whites. I assume you don't want "affirmative action" to force police to search an equal number of random white people for every black person that is searched because then, assuming whites aren't inherently less criminal by nature, the number of people in prison for petty crimes would be insane. 1 in 3 civilians will have been to prison at some point, and there is no way for a country to afford that. Instead, you knowingly vie for a system that systematically eliminates non-whites from society. You willfully believe that Black people are simply more suspicious as a whole than Whites. I don't know you, and can't say that I dislike you for any reason, but by holding your opinion, you have already met my definition of a racist. To me, what you have already said is tantamount to you declaring to be a proud and open racist, and so I doubt the argument is going to get anywhere from here. I simply don't think like you.

/r/baltimore Thread Parent Link - twitter.com