Mission Impossible 2: Charleston blacks whine to cops "why we aint safe in ghetto"; 5 yr old shot

[bucs90]

Grandmother of 5-year-old wounded in shooting We walked into a gunfight. - Post and Courier

And it just keeps getting worse. A grandma and her 5 year old were shot in thug crossfire. Blacks confronted cops and whined "are we not safe in the projects" (actual quote. And no...you arent.)

They demanded to know why cops "didnt do something" to PREVENT this gunfight from happening in the first place.

Remember. ...Charleston had a stop and frisk policy similar to New York...which droppes murder and crime rates by nearly 200% in Charleston ghettos. But the NAACP and crew whined and CPD backed off. All before nearby North Charlestons ugly incident.

So they demanded Charleston PD stop...stopping black men for low level offenses. Now...violence is surging...and they bitch to cops about why they dont prevent violent crime.

Get Tom Cruise on the phone. Mission Impossible: Charleston ghetto safety

 

[bucs90]

Wont blame themselves. Ever.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Time to make these housing projects weapons free. Metal detectors going in and out, manned by police. with heavy jail time for offenders.

Either that, or ban blacks. Either way..

 

[bucs90]

Time to make these housing projects weapons free. Metal detectors going in and out, manned by police. with heavy jail time for offenders.

Either that, or ban blacks. Either way..

Chief Mullen actually tried close to that. He shut down all but 1 entrance to all projects and manned it 24/7 with officers.

Crime plummeted.
NAACP protested.
Chief backed off.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Time to make these housing projects weapons free. Metal detectors going in and out, manned by police. with heavy jail time for offenders.

Either that, or ban blacks. Either way..

Chief Mullen actually tried close to that. He shut down all but 1 entrance to all projects and manned it 24/7 with officers.

Crime plummeted.
NAACP protested.
Chief backed off.

It's time to just make these ghettos their own cities, wall them off and tell them to police themselves.

 

[bucs90]

Time to make these housing projects weapons free. Metal detectors going in and out, manned by police. with heavy jail time for offenders.

Either that, or ban blacks. Either way..

Chief Mullen actually tried close to that. He shut down all but 1 entrance to all projects and manned it 24/7 with officers.

Crime plummeted.
NAACP protested.
Chief backed off.

It's time to just make these ghettos their own cities, wall them off and tell them to police themselves.

Yep.

 

[2aguy]

Time to make these housing projects weapons free. Metal detectors going in and out, manned by police. with heavy jail time for offenders.

Either that, or ban blacks. Either way..

Do you really think that would work....? They are criminals....they break the law and get around those trying to stop them....remember....they can't have the guns in the first place....right?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Time to make these housing projects weapons free. Metal detectors going in and out, manned by police. with heavy jail time for offenders.

Either that, or ban blacks. Either way..

Chief Mullen actually tried close to that. He shut down all but 1 entrance to all projects and manned it 24/7 with officers.

Crime plummeted.
NAACP protested.
Chief backed off.

It's time to just make these ghettos their own cities, wall them off and tell them to police themselves.

Yep.

We should set them on fire and gun down the people running away!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

 

[Soulless65]

Grandmother of 5-year-old wounded in shooting We walked into a gunfight. - Post and Courier

And it just keeps getting worse. A grandma and her 5 year old were shot in thug crossfire. Blacks confronted cops and whined "are we not safe in the projects" (actual quote. And no...you arent.)

They demanded to know why cops "didnt do something" to PREVENT this gunfight from happening in the first place.

Remember. ...Charleston had a stop and frisk policy similar to New York...which droppes murder and crime rates by nearly 200% in Charleston ghettos. But the NAACP and crew whined and CPD backed off. All before nearby North Charlestons ugly incident.

So they demanded Charleston PD stop...stopping black men for low level offenses. Now...violence is surging...and they bitch to cops about why they dont prevent violent crime.

Get Tom Cruise on the phone. Mission Impossible: Charleston ghetto safety

So its official bucs90 does not care for the US Constitution

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

No, Incorrect. Stop & Frisk , when done correctly, is good police work. Shame on the Court for getting that wrong.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

No, Incorrect. Stop & Frisk , when done correctly, is good police work. Shame on the Court for getting that wrong.

Go read the 4th Amendment and get back to me.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

No, Incorrect. Stop & Frisk , when done correctly, is good police work. Shame on the Court for getting that wrong.

Go read the 4th Amendment and get back to me.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word UNREASONABLE, that CLEARLY tells you that the founders meant for there to be cases where people didn't have the right to not be searched without warrant. Otherwise , the Amendment would have simply ready

against searches and seizures.

IF the stop and frisk were so unreasonable why does crime drop so precipitously any time they are utilized? The answer, of course, is that they are reasonable searches in that they are performed on people who we can reasonably assume are up to no good.

It's called logic.

And by the way. Stop and frisk was NOT ruled unconstitutional. There were simply concerns about it being seen as racist, which is a stupidity for another thread.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

No, Incorrect. Stop & Frisk , when done correctly, is good police work. Shame on the Court for getting that wrong.

Go read the 4th Amendment and get back to me.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word UNREASONABLE, that CLEARLY tells you that the founders meant for there to be cases where people didn't have the right to not be searched without warrant. Otherwise , the Amendment would have simply ready

against searches and seizures.

IF the stop and frisk were so unreasonable why does crime drop so precipitously any time they are utilized? The answer, of course, is that they are reasonable searches in that they are performed on people who we can reasonably assume are up to no good.

It's called logic.

And by the way. Stop and frisk was NOT ruled unconstitutional. There were simply concerns about it being seen as racist, which is a stupidity for another thread.

If it's racist it's unconstitutional. Please refer to the 14th Amendment. And the term "unreasonable" is not subjective or anyone could say they think a search is reasonable. It's inextricably in tandem with a warrant or probable cause, neither of which exist when cops are pulling people off the street at random and searching them.

As I said, it's unconstitutional. The ratifiers were unambiguous on the 4th Amendment.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

No, Incorrect. Stop & Frisk , when done correctly, is good police work. Shame on the Court for getting that wrong.

Go read the 4th Amendment and get back to me.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word UNREASONABLE, that CLEARLY tells you that the founders meant for there to be cases where people didn't have the right to not be searched without warrant. Otherwise , the Amendment would have simply ready

against searches and seizures.

IF the stop and frisk were so unreasonable why does crime drop so precipitously any time they are utilized? The answer, of course, is that they are reasonable searches in that they are performed on people who we can reasonably assume are up to no good.

It's called logic.

And by the way. Stop and frisk was NOT ruled unconstitutional. There were simply concerns about it being seen as racist, which is a stupidity for another thread.

If it's racist it's unconstitutional. Please refer to the 14th Amendment. And the term "unreasonable" is not subjective or anyone could say they think a search is reasonable. It's inextricably in tandem with a warrant or probable cause, neither of which exist when cops are pulling people off the street at random and searching them.

As I said, it's unconstitutional. The ratifiers were unambiguous on the 4th Amendment.

IF it's racist, which clearly even the Court ruled that Stop & Frisk could be accomplished without being racist.

And CLEARLY you have no clue what you are talking about in terms of reasonable searches. Reasonable searches are based on reasonable suspicion, which is a fairly low threshold . A threshold that has been upheld over and over ad over as CONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

No, Incorrect. Stop & Frisk , when done correctly, is good police work. Shame on the Court for getting that wrong.

Go read the 4th Amendment and get back to me.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word UNREASONABLE, that CLEARLY tells you that the founders meant for there to be cases where people didn't have the right to not be searched without warrant. Otherwise , the Amendment would have simply ready

against searches and seizures.

IF the stop and frisk were so unreasonable why does crime drop so precipitously any time they are utilized? The answer, of course, is that they are reasonable searches in that they are performed on people who we can reasonably assume are up to no good.

It's called logic.

And by the way. Stop and frisk was NOT ruled unconstitutional. There were simply concerns about it being seen as racist, which is a stupidity for another thread.

If it's racist it's unconstitutional. Please refer to the 14th Amendment. And the term "unreasonable" is not subjective or anyone could say they think a search is reasonable. It's inextricably in tandem with a warrant or probable cause, neither of which exist when cops are pulling people off the street at random and searching them.

As I said, it's unconstitutional. The ratifiers were unambiguous on the 4th Amendment.

IF it's racist, which clearly even the Court ruled that Stop & Frisk could be accomplished without being racist.

And CLEARLY you have no clue what you are talking about in terms of reasonable searches. Reasonable searches are based on reasonable suspicion, which is a fairly low threshold . A threshold that has been upheld over and over ad over as CONSTITUTIONAL.

Incorrect. In fact bad searches are the most common technicality by which cases are thrown out. And searching people just for walking down the street doesn't even come close. We real conservatives who believe in the Constitution don't believe in trading freedom for security as you statist neocons do.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, Incorrect. Stop & Frisk , when done correctly, is good police work. Shame on the Court for getting that wrong.

Go read the 4th Amendment and get back to me.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word UNREASONABLE, that CLEARLY tells you that the founders meant for there to be cases where people didn't have the right to not be searched without warrant. Otherwise , the Amendment would have simply ready

against searches and seizures.

IF the stop and frisk were so unreasonable why does crime drop so precipitously any time they are utilized? The answer, of course, is that they are reasonable searches in that they are performed on people who we can reasonably assume are up to no good.

It's called logic.

And by the way. Stop and frisk was NOT ruled unconstitutional. There were simply concerns about it being seen as racist, which is a stupidity for another thread.

If it's racist it's unconstitutional. Please refer to the 14th Amendment. And the term "unreasonable" is not subjective or anyone could say they think a search is reasonable. It's inextricably in tandem with a warrant or probable cause, neither of which exist when cops are pulling people off the street at random and searching them.

As I said, it's unconstitutional. The ratifiers were unambiguous on the 4th Amendment.

IF it's racist, which clearly even the Court ruled that Stop & Frisk could be accomplished without being racist.

And CLEARLY you have no clue what you are talking about in terms of reasonable searches. Reasonable searches are based on reasonable suspicion, which is a fairly low threshold . A threshold that has been upheld over and over ad over as CONSTITUTIONAL.

Incorrect. In fact bad searches are the most common technicality by which cases are thrown out. And searching people just for walking down the street doesn't even come close. We real conservatives who believe in the Constitution don't believe in trading freedom for security as you statist neocons do.

Who gives one rat's ass what you believe moron. Case precedent CLEARLY says that you are wrong on what is constitutional and what is not.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Go read the 4th Amendment and get back to me.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word UNREASONABLE, that CLEARLY tells you that the founders meant for there to be cases where people didn't have the right to not be searched without warrant. Otherwise , the Amendment would have simply ready

against searches and seizures.

IF the stop and frisk were so unreasonable why does crime drop so precipitously any time they are utilized? The answer, of course, is that they are reasonable searches in that they are performed on people who we can reasonably assume are up to no good.

It's called logic.

And by the way. Stop and frisk was NOT ruled unconstitutional. There were simply concerns about it being seen as racist, which is a stupidity for another thread.

If it's racist it's unconstitutional. Please refer to the 14th Amendment. And the term "unreasonable" is not subjective or anyone could say they think a search is reasonable. It's inextricably in tandem with a warrant or probable cause, neither of which exist when cops are pulling people off the street at random and searching them.

As I said, it's unconstitutional. The ratifiers were unambiguous on the 4th Amendment.

IF it's racist, which clearly even the Court ruled that Stop & Frisk could be accomplished without being racist.

And CLEARLY you have no clue what you are talking about in terms of reasonable searches. Reasonable searches are based on reasonable suspicion, which is a fairly low threshold . A threshold that has been upheld over and over ad over as CONSTITUTIONAL.

Incorrect. In fact bad searches are the most common technicality by which cases are thrown out. And searching people just for walking down the street doesn't even come close. We real conservatives who believe in the Constitution don't believe in trading freedom for security as you statist neocons do.

Who gives one rat's ass what you believe moron. Case precedent CLEARLY says that you are wrong on what is constitutional and what is not.

Yet we're no longer practicing stop and frisk. So it's kinda like I'm right and case law is on my side. Go get some ice on that butt hurt, statist.

 

[Katzndogz]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It's good that judges sided with civil rights and put an end to that practice.

It's especially good for the people that live in the inner city.

 

[bucs90]

Guys....SCOTUS already ruled stop and frisk reasonable under Terry vs Ohio. You dont need probable cause. Just "reasonable suspicion".