Anti-gun New York City reducing gun crime? Can you say “stop and frisk?”

[JoeB131]

Again....the Japanese police can search you anytime, for any reason......and you have to submit.

The prosecutors can hold you without letting you see a lawyer....

Judges allow this.....

You don't want the AMerican police to do what the Japanese police can do.......you are an idiot when you try to use Japan, yet you hate American police.

Yet the Japanese Police never shoot people in the street, they lock up very few people.

Women can safely ride the subway at night. Children can go about and run errands for their parents

 

[Anathema]

Yes, Stop and Frisk is wonderful, they should apply it to white people

Definitely. Anyone the cops feel may be a criminal should be stopped, forced to provide positive ID, frisked and cited/arrested for EVERY offense found.

 

[Anathema]

Crime has gone down everywhere else, too, without violating people's civil rights

I don’t believe in Rights I believe in Privileges, earned by proper behavior.

 

[JoeB131]

I don’t believe in Rights I believe in Privileges, earned by proper behavior.

Nobody cares what you believe.

 

[Anathema]

Nobody cares what you believe

They don’t care what you believe either.

 

[2aguy]

Yet the Japanese Police never shoot people in the street, they lock up very few people.

Women can safely ride the subway at night. Children can go about and run errands for their parents

They don't have to because their people comply, and submit.......acting in a criminal way brings shame on them as an individual, to their families and the community.....they have rigid social control over their people...

You hate American police but love the Japanese police ability to search anyone, anytime, hold people indefinitely and coerce confessions out of them.......

You are an idiot.

 

[toobfreak]

Well, well, well……..it seems that those who brag about New York City lowering gun murder rates don’t like to explain how they are doing it……

Whatever happened to illegal search and seizure?

So much for that democracy democrats keep talking about while they stomp it to pieces.

 

[JoeB131]

Whatever happened to illegal search and seizure?

Silly boy, that only applies to White People.

At least in 2TinyGuy's world. I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed if a cop frisked him and decided his concealed carry wasn't allowed

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Whatever happened to illegal search and seizure?

View attachment 894337

So much for that democracy democrats keep talking about while they stomp it to pieces.

Don't Try to Reason With the Thug-Huggers Who Think Any Search Is "Unreasonable"

 

[Jarlaxle]

We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues


If the police know who the gangstas are, they must kill those beasts in cold blood. Any other reaction to these enemies of the human race is state-sponsored terrorism, no matter if it is the Rightist approach. We should have realized by now that neither party is interested in our safety from these humanoids.

Don't Try to Reason With the Thug-Huggers Who Think Any Search Is "Unreasonable"

You are nuttier than squirrel shit.

Yes, bcause the police murdering people worked out so well for us.

Were you asleep during 2020?

No, because he-like you-is nuts.

 

[woodwork201]

Well, well, well……..it seems that those who brag about New York City lowering gun murder rates don’t like to explain how they are doing it……

Is it their gun control laws?

No, because their criminals ignore those laws, so targeting law abiding gun owners does nothing to lower gun crime or murder.

So, in order to actually stop the felons doing the shooting…..New York democrat mayor has once again implemented the tried and true targeting of criminals…..with stop and frisk….

NYC’s stop and frisk report should be a ‘cautionary tale’ for Philly, attorney says

New York Police Department officers are not complying with federal legal standards for stop and frisk, according to a new report from a public oversight agency.

whyy.org

A lot of shootings happen when gang members carry illegal guns. When they don’t have to worry about the police stopping them, they carry their illegal guns without fear……

when cops can frisk them…..since the cops generally know who the gang bangers are…..they stop carrying guns and shootings go down.

A problem we have in the 2nd Amendment Community is that we are all, more or less, supportive of law and order. We want the bad guys arrested and jailed, both to stop their own crime sprees and also to set an example to other potential criminals. But the problem we have is that once we allow the Government to violate the Constitution in any one thing, we have, in effect, allowed them to violate the Constitution in anything they choose.

So when we, in the interests of law and order, allow the police to search without probable cause or oath and affirmation of probable cause, why are we surprised then, when they violate the 2nd Amendment as long as they claim it is for law and order, or public safety?

Justice Thomas, may God preserve him and hold a high place in Heaven for him, though I cannot find the official statement from him right now, has stated that Terry has been abused in ways the Court never intended. Do you really believe that Thomas Jefferson or James Madison would have approved the Red Coats stopping colonists and searching them on street corners? Is that being secure in your person?

Freedom is dangerous. If being free means more crime and if it takes more work on the part of the Government to solve crime, then so be it. Just like gun control laws, Terry is not the solution to crime. Failure to search everyone on the street is not the cause of crime so increased searches of people on the streets is not the solution to crime.

North Korea has far less crime (but not zero crime) than the United States. So does China. So do many of the most dictatorial governments in the world. Yes, you can reduce crime by reducing freedom. You can reduce crime by violating the Constitution.

But the way, in the United States, that we should be reducing crime is by finding the sources and fixing that. The biggest source of crime today is no-bail releases, free shoplifting up to $950. Failure of Soros funded DAs and judges to prosecute criminals and to put them in prison. In the United States, we're not supposed to use force to prevent crime but, instead, to respond to what a person does rather than to what a person looks like they might do.

As long as you support violations of the Constitution in the area of search and seizure, don't complain when that same government violates the Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[woodwork201]

Silly boy, that only applies to White People.

At least in 2TinyGuy's world. I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed if a cop frisked him and decided his concealed carry wasn't allowed

The entire basis of the Terry stop is that the police can do a pat down for weapons that might represent a danger to the cop. That is a complete violation of the 2nd Amendment since there are no weapons that can be infringed, based on history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment. The cops should automatically assume that everyone on the streets is armed and that assumption should not result in any negative behavior by the police or in any assumption of other crimes. They can certainly pay close attention to the behaviors and movements of those with whom they are interacting but that's pretty much it, unless or until they see something criminal.

I haven't dug into it, historically, from this perspective but I wonder how tightly connected was the Terry decision and the change of police to Law Enforcement rather than Peace Officer. Because now the police seem to think that crime prevention is their job rather than solving crimes, and Terry totally supports that role. Based on crime prevention as a legitimate objective of the standing army that the police are, wouldn't it make sense for them to identify any DNA sequences that increase the likelihood of future crimes and arrest those likely to be criminals? Those who associate with criminals, who are poor and live in high-crime, high-gang, communities? All those would reduce crime.

The only legitimate crime prevention role for the standing army is public presence. When the people see the soldiers, they're less likely to commit crimes. When crimes are committed, the soldiers are there to react quickly. But an even better approach is an armed populace, yes, vigilantes, or those in the community being vigilant in observing what's going on around them. Those involved in neighborhood watch or otherwise assigned, can call out, by bell, by voice, by radio (the modern militia man's bell) and the militia responds and apprehends the criminal. That was the Founding Father's plan. The idea of a uniformed standing army, even if the uniform is different from that part of the army fighting in foreign entanglements (another thing the Founders hated) would be very repulsive to the Founders and if they had seen this coming they would, no doubt, have blocked it in the Constitution.