"Stop and frisk" fascism vs. 2nd Amendment

[CrusaderFrank]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

republicans support every gun law imaginable for black people, but to be fair they dont support black people have any rights whatsoever not just gun rights or the right not to be searched

cough cough BS cough

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

New York was not an open carry city. Nor is Chicago. And even if they were you still need an id on you. Who the hell leaves their house without an id?

Well, make up your mind. Either you are for background checks or you aren't.

There is nothing confusing about my statements. Stop trying to move the goal posts btw

 

[PurpleOwl]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

I support police efforts to try to save their lives and you and Hillary obviously put little value on the lives of young black and Hispanic men.

Point is with body camera requirements to participate in stop & frisk the proof or lack thereof of probable cause will be available

not true they did not need probable cause you dont even know what the fuck your talking about

Debate Fact Check: Trump Wrong, Stop and Frisk was Ruled Unconstitutional

By one local NY judge. We all know court rulings like this are battled all the way to scotus. One local judge does not get to determine what is constitutional across the land.

so why would that court say it violated the fourth, if they required probable cause? what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Keywords PROBABLE CAUSE

more lies

It's right there in the 4th amendment. How the hell is that a lie?

keep reading...

I did. And probable cause has been used for over a hundred years so do tell, if it's unconstituional why does EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES still exercise it?

They use it in routine traffic stops where a violation can already be cited. But stop and frisk can be done without a citable violation. And that's where the worm turns, doesn't it?

Which is why I said probable cause & body cameras are a must.

How is this bad in any way?

 

[PurpleOwl]

more lies

It's right there in the 4th amendment. How the hell is that a lie?

keep reading...

I did. And probable cause has been used for over a hundred years so do tell, if it's unconstituional why does EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES still exercise it?

They use it in routine traffic stops where a violation can already be cited. But stop and frisk can be done without a citable violation. And that's where the worm turns, doesn't it?

Which is why I said probable cause & body cameras are a must.

How is this bad in any way?

whats so great about the bill of rights anyway?

 

[PurpleOwl]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

republicans support every gun law imaginable for black people, but to be fair they dont support black people have any rights whatsoever not just gun rights or the right not to be searched

cough cough BS cough

what part of that is wrong?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

I support police efforts to try to save their lives and you and Hillary obviously put little value on the lives of young black and Hispanic men.

Point is with body camera requirements to participate in stop & frisk the proof or lack thereof of probable cause will be available

not true they did not need probable cause you dont even know what the fuck your talking about

Debate Fact Check: Trump Wrong, Stop and Frisk was Ruled Unconstitutional

By one local NY judge. We all know court rulings like this are battled all the way to scotus. One local judge does not get to determine what is constitutional across the land.

so why would that court say it violated the fourth, if they required probable cause? what the fuck are you talking about?

Because that judge felt the way they did. I'm not a fucking mind reader are you?
Obama said the Obamacare mandate was NOT A TAX. The courts ruled it was. Just another example of a court being wrong

 

[PurpleOwl]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

I support police efforts to try to save their lives and you and Hillary obviously put little value on the lives of young black and Hispanic men.

Point is with body camera requirements to participate in stop & frisk the proof or lack thereof of probable cause will be available

not true they did not need probable cause you dont even know what the fuck your talking about

Debate Fact Check: Trump Wrong, Stop and Frisk was Ruled Unconstitutional

By one local NY judge. We all know court rulings like this are battled all the way to scotus. One local judge does not get to determine what is constitutional across the land.

so why would that court say it violated the fourth, if they required probable cause? what the fuck are you talking about?

Because that judge felt the way they did. I'm not a fucking mind reader are you?
Obama said the Obamacare mandate was NOT A TAX. The courts ruled it was. Just another example of a court being wrong

what is stop and frisk? explain what you think it is

 

[pismoe]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

---------------------------------------------------------------- just carry what you want when you want , both open carry or concealed . There are quite a few states when carry of anything anywhere and at anytime is totally legal . I oppose and sort of stopping and frisking .

 

[pismoe]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

---------------------------------------------------------------- just carry what you want when you want , both open carry or concealed . There are quite a few states when carry of anything anywhere and at anytime is totally legal . I oppose and sort of stopping and frisking .

------------------------------- its called Consitutional Carry and is practiced in some states and the list of states is growing .

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

---------------------------------------------------------------- just carry what you want when you want , both open carry or concealed . There are quite a few states when carry of anything anywhere and at anytime is totally legal . I oppose and sort of stopping and frisking .

Missouri is open carry.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

I support police efforts to try to save their lives and you and Hillary obviously put little value on the lives of young black and Hispanic men.

Point is with body camera requirements to participate in stop & frisk the proof or lack thereof of probable cause will be available

not true they did not need probable cause you dont even know what the fuck your talking about

Debate Fact Check: Trump Wrong, Stop and Frisk was Ruled Unconstitutional

By one local NY judge. We all know court rulings like this are battled all the way to scotus. One local judge does not get to determine what is constitutional across the land.

so why would that court say it violated the fourth, if they required probable cause? what the fuck are you talking about?

This was a federal district court decision that would have been overturned on appeal because it is in direct contradiction of a Supreme Court decision allowing stop and frisk. It was a political decision by the mayor that kept it from being overturned.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."[1]

For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "theexclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PurpleOwl]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

I support police efforts to try to save their lives and you and Hillary obviously put little value on the lives of young black and Hispanic men.

Point is with body camera requirements to participate in stop & frisk the proof or lack thereof of probable cause will be available

not true they did not need probable cause you dont even know what the fuck your talking about

Debate Fact Check: Trump Wrong, Stop and Frisk was Ruled Unconstitutional

By one local NY judge. We all know court rulings like this are battled all the way to scotus. One local judge does not get to determine what is constitutional across the land.

so why would that court say it violated the fourth, if they required probable cause? what the fuck are you talking about?

This was a federal district court decision that would have been overturned on appeal because it is in direct contradiction of a Supreme Court decision allowing stop and frisk. It was a political decision by the mayor that kept it from being overturned.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."[1]

For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "theexclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unless being black counts as "reasonable suspicion of being armed" that case wouldn't apply

 

[Nosmo King]

more lies

It's right there in the 4th amendment. How the hell is that a lie?

keep reading...

I did. And probable cause has been used for over a hundred years so do tell, if it's unconstituional why does EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES still exercise it?

They use it in routine traffic stops where a violation can already be cited. But stop and frisk can be done without a citable violation. And that's where the worm turns, doesn't it?

Which is why I said probable cause & body cameras are a must.

How is this bad in any way?

To randomly stop and frisk someone without a search warrant is a direct violation of their 4thg amendment rights. If the 4th is so elastic to be dismissed, why isn't the 2nd?

 

[pismoe]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

---------------------------------------------------------------- just carry what you want when you want , both open carry or concealed . There are quite a few states when carry of anything anywhere and at anytime is totally legal . I oppose and sort of stopping and frisking .

------------------------------- its called Consitutional Carry and is practiced in some states and the list of states is growing .

------------------------------------------------------------ this is some background on Constitutional Carry . --- Constitutional Carry Index ---

 

[Vigilante]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

The assholes on the left such as Cunton last night fail to recognize that stop and frisk lowered the crime rate in NYC it dropped 85% under Rudy's administration...All the racist left wants to do is protect #BLM! And the Thugery pandering to supposed black votes.

 

[PurpleOwl]

It's right there in the 4th amendment. How the hell is that a lie?

keep reading...

I did. And probable cause has been used for over a hundred years so do tell, if it's unconstituional why does EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES still exercise it?

They use it in routine traffic stops where a violation can already be cited. But stop and frisk can be done without a citable violation. And that's where the worm turns, doesn't it?

Which is why I said probable cause & body cameras are a must.

How is this bad in any way?

To randomly stop and frisk someone without a search warrant is a direct violation of their 4thg amendment rights. If the 4th is so elastic to be dismissed, why isn't the 2nd?

if white people were being stopped and searched under the guise of looking for weapons, like black people were in NY republicans would be outraged and so would the NRA but because they focused on blacks and hispanics republicans dont even know what the law is, they literally could not care less

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's right there in the 4th amendment. How the hell is that a lie?

keep reading...

I did. And probable cause has been used for over a hundred years so do tell, if it's unconstituional why does EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES still exercise it?

They use it in routine traffic stops where a violation can already be cited. But stop and frisk can be done without a citable violation. And that's where the worm turns, doesn't it?

Which is why I said probable cause & body cameras are a must.

How is this bad in any way?

To randomly stop and frisk someone without a search warrant is a direct violation of their 4thg amendment rights. If the 4th is so elastic to be dismissed, why isn't the 2nd?

And of course the projection begins. When & where did I say RANDOM?

That's right, I didn't. Just more moving of the goal posts

 

[Nosmo King]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

The assholes on the left such as Cunton last night fail to recognize that stop and frisk lowered the crime rate in NYC it dropped 85% under Rudy's administration...All the racist left wants to do is protect #BLM! And the Thugery pandering to supposed black votes.

I'd like to protect people's rights under the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment. If the second is so valuable to be used as an excuse to continue the chaos of gun violence, what makes the 4th and 5th so expendable?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

I support police efforts to try to save their lives and you and Hillary obviously put little value on the lives of young black and Hispanic men.

Point is with body camera requirements to participate in stop & frisk the proof or lack thereof of probable cause will be available

not true they did not need probable cause you dont even know what the fuck your talking about

Debate Fact Check: Trump Wrong, Stop and Frisk was Ruled Unconstitutional

By one local NY judge. We all know court rulings like this are battled all the way to scotus. One local judge does not get to determine what is constitutional across the land.

so why would that court say it violated the fourth, if they required probable cause? what the fuck are you talking about?

This was a federal district court decision that would have been overturned on appeal because it is in direct contradiction of a Supreme Court decision allowing stop and frisk. It was a political decision by the mayor that kept it from being overturned.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."[1]

For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "theexclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unless being black counts as "reasonable suspicion of being armed" that case wouldn't apply

Obviously, the NYPD didn't send officers out with instructions to stop people because they were black or Hispanic, so if some officers did, that calls for more training, not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.