Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
“If anything, stop-and-frisk doesn’t go far enough,” asserted Williams, who claimed to be reporting from “one of New York’s most crime-ridden neighborhoods.”
No, she wasn’t in East New York or Hunts Point, but rather Wall Street – or, as she called it, “The White Bronx" or "Business Harlem.”
“Frankly, John, I don’t feel safe here. And I would like to see the police do their freaking jobs and start stopping people down here,” she said angrily.
Oliver countered that Williams was unfairly calling for "the arbitrary harassment of anyone on Wall Street.”
But she clarified she was only targeting people likely to be white-collar criminals: “You know, walking around in tailored suits, slicked-back hair, always need sunscreen, if you know what I’m saying.”
“If you don’t want to be associated with white-collar crime, maybe you shouldn’t dress that way,” she added. “It’s OK, I can say that. Some of my best friends are white men in suits.”
As a white man in a suit, Oliver objected to the negative stereotyping of his demographic, but Williams stuck to her assertion that “white-collar crime is disproportionately committed by people who fit a certain profile.”
“If you are, say, a white, Upper East Side billionaire with ties to the financial community like Michael Bloomberg, you just gotta accept getting roughed up by the police every once in a while,” Williams concluded.
Frisky Business - Jessica Williams - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/13/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
NYPD should stop and frisk ... on Wall Street
If anything, stop-and-frisk doesnt go far enough, asserted Williams, who claimed to be reporting from one of New Yorks most crime-ridden neighborhoods.
No, she wasnt in East New York or Hunts Point, but rather Wall Street or, as she called it, The White Bronx" or "Business Harlem.
Frankly, John, I dont feel safe here. And I would like to see the police do their freaking jobs and start stopping people down here, she said angrily.
Oliver countered that Williams was unfairly calling for "the arbitrary harassment of anyone on Wall Street.
But she clarified she was only targeting people likely to be white-collar criminals: You know, walking around in tailored suits, slicked-back hair, always need sunscreen, if you know what Im saying.
If you dont want to be associated with white-collar crime, maybe you shouldnt dress that way, she added. Its OK, I can say that. Some of my best friends are white men in suits.
As a white man in a suit, Oliver objected to the negative stereotyping of his demographic, but Williams stuck to her assertion that white-collar crime is disproportionately committed by people who fit a certain profile.
If you are, say, a white, Upper East Side billionaire with ties to the financial community like Michael Bloomberg, you just gotta accept getting roughed up by the police every once in a while, Williams concluded.
Frisky Business - Jessica Williams - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/13/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
NYPD should stop and frisk ... on Wall Street
If anything, stop-and-frisk doesnt go far enough, asserted Williams, who claimed to be reporting from one of New Yorks most crime-ridden neighborhoods.
No, she wasnt in East New York or Hunts Point, but rather Wall Street or, as she called it, The White Bronx" or "Business Harlem.
Frankly, John, I dont feel safe here. And I would like to see the police do their freaking jobs and start stopping people down here, she said angrily.
Oliver countered that Williams was unfairly calling for "the arbitrary harassment of anyone on Wall Street.
But she clarified she was only targeting people likely to be white-collar criminals: You know, walking around in tailored suits, slicked-back hair, always need sunscreen, if you know what Im saying.
If you dont want to be associated with white-collar crime, maybe you shouldnt dress that way, she added. Its OK, I can say that. Some of my best friends are white men in suits.
As a white man in a suit, Oliver objected to the negative stereotyping of his demographic, but Williams stuck to her assertion that white-collar crime is disproportionately committed by people who fit a certain profile.
If you are, say, a white, Upper East Side billionaire with ties to the financial community like Michael Bloomberg, you just gotta accept getting roughed up by the police every once in a while, Williams concluded.
Typical liberal response to a real problem, i.e. crime in poor neighborhoods.
1. Propose some dumb equivalency,
2. Feel good about yourself for sticking it to the man
3.Go back to hanging with your hipster friends and pretending to be ironic.
Meanwhile the real problem doesnt go away.
Frisky Business - Jessica Williams - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/13/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
NYPD should stop and frisk ... on Wall Street
Typical liberal response to a real problem, i.e. crime in poor neighborhoods.
1. Propose some dumb equivalency,
2. Feel good about yourself for sticking it to the man
3.Go back to hanging with your hipster friends and pretending to be ironic.
Meanwhile the real problem doesnt go away.
Typical you response.
Pretending some law does something it doesn't.
Call names to protect said law
Get lost on the point
Meanwhile you still don't get it. Purposeful ignorance isn't a virtue
Typical liberal response to a real problem, i.e. crime in poor neighborhoods.
1. Propose some dumb equivalency,
2. Feel good about yourself for sticking it to the man
3.Go back to hanging with your hipster friends and pretending to be ironic.
Meanwhile the real problem doesnt go away.
Typical you response.
Pretending some law does something it doesn't.
Call names to protect said law
Get lost on the point
Meanwhile you still don't get it. Purposeful ignorance isn't a virtue
This is not about the real stop and frisk law, its about the douchey liberal attitude that symbolic idiocy will somehow make the problem all better.
Style over substance, the liberal mantra. (Also, its not YOUR money, its OUR money. That ones a close second)
That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)
Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.
If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.
Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.
Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.
Typical you response.
Pretending some law does something it doesn't.
Call names to protect said law
Get lost on the point
Meanwhile you still don't get it. Purposeful ignorance isn't a virtue
This is not about the real stop and frisk law, its about the douchey liberal attitude that symbolic idiocy will somehow make the problem all better.
Style over substance, the liberal mantra. (Also, its not YOUR money, its OUR money. That ones a close second)
How many times can you post while ignoring it? Lets count...that's 2.
Stop and frisk is a bullshit law.
Americans should be able to travel freely in this country without being subjected to search without a warrant. I don't even buy "probable cause".
If NYC wants to live in an oppressive soviet state, there's one in North Korea. If they want to stop criminals from hurting/killing people, they need to arm themselves and kill violent aggressive sociopaths.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)
Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.
If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.
Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.
Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.
Stop and frisk is a bullshit law.
Americans should be able to travel freely in this country without being subjected to search without a warrant. I don't even buy "probable cause".
If NYC wants to live in an oppressive soviet state, there's one in North Korea. If they want to stop criminals from hurting/killing people, they need to arm themselves and kill violent aggressive sociopaths.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)
Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.
If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.
Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.
Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.
Bolded: False
Second Bolded: Give an excuse and its all good. Bullshit
Third Bolded: To prevent possible crimes of course. Crimes aren't only things you are afraid of. White collar crime is just one crime. Are you pretending there aren't Drugs and Weapons aren't on Wall Street?
So why are you afraid to check? You want it to continue.
The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[3] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspects outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be armed and dangerous.[4] When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a stop and frisk.
To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to specific and articulable facts that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]
The search of the suspects outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons;[8] however, pursuant to the plain feel doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contrabands identity is immediately apparent.[9]
That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)
Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.
If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.
Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.
Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.
Stop and frisk is not a Terry stop. It doesn't meet constitutional requirements and the pigs involved should be sued in civil court.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)
Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.
If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.
Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.
Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.
Stop and frisk is not a Terry stop. It doesn't meet constitutional requirements and the pigs involved should be sued in civil court.
Stop and Frisk is a subset of a Terry Stop. It requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place (To stop) and the officers have to have a reasonable and articulated suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous (To frisk).
Stop and frisk is a bullshit law.
Americans should be able to travel freely in this country without being subjected to search without a warrant. I don't even buy "probable cause".
If NYC wants to live in an oppressive soviet state, there's one in North Korea. If they want to stop criminals from hurting/killing people, they need to arm themselves and kill violent aggressive sociopaths.
Then you will need to ammend the Fourth amendment because it clearlly allows probable cause arrests & searches.
Stop and frisk is not a Terry stop. It doesn't meet constitutional requirements and the pigs involved should be sued in civil court.
Stop and Frisk is a subset of a Terry Stop. It requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place (To stop) and the officers have to have a reasonable and articulated suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous (To frisk).
I have to admit ignorance here, since I haven't read into it or done any research. I'm just going off what I've heard. So if the cops have a REASONABLE suspicion to stop someone, and REASONABLE cause to search them I can't be against it of course. Otherwise I'm opposed to people being stopped for merely walking down a street and being forced to show ID and subject themselves to questions and searches. That's just plain tyranny in my mind.
However the whole issue of "possessing illegal weapons" rubs me the wrong way. If it wasn't for the draconian gun laws in the first place, NYC never would have had such an abundance of criminals.
This is not about the real stop and frisk law, its about the douchey liberal attitude that symbolic idiocy will somehow make the problem all better.
Style over substance, the liberal mantra. (Also, its not YOUR money, its OUR money. That ones a close second)
How many times can you post while ignoring it? Lets count...that's 2.
There is debate on the stop & frisk law in other threads. Personally I am not 100% decided on the topic itself. If you want to discuss the merits of stop & frisk, one has other posts where that can occur. Your post was specifically about some idiocy about stoping and frisking wall street people, which is nothing more than typical class warfare bullshit, that has nothing to do with the crime issue in poor neighborhoods.
I am commenting on your idiocy agreeing to and posting the drivel you linked, not on the merits of stop & frisk.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week. (Im sure ill hear something dumber next week)
Stop and Frisk or a Terry Stop is only allowable to search for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he/she might be in danger.
If they have no articulated reason how they would be in danger, there is no Constitutional justification for the frisk. It's classified under an investigatory stop.
Now we are supposed to stop and frisk people who may be white collar criminals. For what reason? Do they have illegal weapons on them? Even from a statist standpoint, how would frisking a white collar criminal provide any evidence whatsoever of a crime. The very nature of white collar crime would make it unlikely that someone guilty of such a crime would be walking around carrying evidence of that crime. You'd want bank records, phone records, computer files etc. Most of which would never be carried around on the actual person.
Why not actually put a case together, get a search warrant and get the evidence that way anyway? That way you don't have to worry about suppression issues.
Bolded: False
Second Bolded: Give an excuse and its all good. Bullshit
Third Bolded: To prevent possible crimes of course. Crimes aren't only things you are afraid of. White collar crime is just one crime. Are you pretending there aren't Drugs and Weapons aren't on Wall Street?
So why are you afraid to check? You want it to continue.
