NY Announces Plans For Random Spending

...and this is a change from previous municipal budgets how, exactly?

Not sure why some are running round talking bout the abusrdity of the program. That 'this won't stop anything' and so on.

First of all, regardless what they say publicly, I hope the police are gonna have people stationed a ways back to keep an eye on profile fittin backpack wearers who drop out/reverses course at sight of checkpoint, so they can be followed/hasselled, etc.

But even if they don't, the randomness screws with the bombers such that they can't scope out maximally effective timed targets and plan with that in mind. Sure, day of, bombers can go to the next station hoping it's not a 'searched' one, but that screws the simulataneous thing, allowing word to spread, clearing out other statations after one bomber, who went to a location w/ no checkpoint, goes off earlier.

If nothing else, it introduces more uncertainty and 'moving parts' into would be subway bombers plans creating more opportunites for fuck ups to occur, making them much more likely to just pick a non subway target w/ less headaches. (which is good even if equal number dead because subway bombing is gonna affect new york more (economically,etc) than other targets.)

Anyway, all those carrying on bout its 'ineffectiveness,' c'mon. When your going to your boyfriends apartment with your weed/X , just take a cab. Won't bankrupt you.

I don't want random people to feel left out on this randomness - so everyone should feel free to make random deposits to my bank account.

Ray, if you choose not to get searched you can walk out of the station, no questions asked. What terrorist isn't going to take that option when asked to open their bomb filled bag? Also, police used to be able to stop suspicious people and demand to see inside their bags. With this new plan, they can't because they've promised people can walk away.

Karol,

That's sora true, but you're not taking into account a lot of things.

A random, voluntary stop and search can quickly turn into an involuntary stop and frisk.

Cops are allowed to detain and search you if they have reasonable cause to suspect you're committing a crime. Or, even if they don't think you're committing a crime, but MAY be carrying a weapon, and they're acting lawfully in questioning you, they're entitled to perform a "Terry frisk" (named after the case that said this was okay, terry v. ohio) to search for weapons. On the theory that, crime or no crime, they should be allowed to do their duty without the danger of suddenly being confronted with an armed man blazing bullets.

Searches are voluntary... until they're not. And a cop can decide when he thinks you're behaving suspiciously enough to constitute reasonable cause for suspicion, or have reasonable grounds to think you have a weapon. Even if a court later deems him wrong, and tosses the evidence out for being the product of an illegal search-- hey, if he found a bomb, that's a bomb taken out of commission.

And while there are a lot of liberal judges, most judges, liberal or not, play politics, and they know what cases to fight for and which to let go, even if the grounds for a search are fishy. In high-profile cases, like a case of a bomb being discovered in a backpack, even a very liberal judge is going to have a hard time deeming a search illegal, even if he suspects the cop is lying through his teeth on the stand.

Basically, you CAN walk away. But refusing to be searched, along with other indica of guilt, such as sweating or jumpiness or what not, can altogether create reasonable cause for a search.