"Stop and frisk" fascism vs. 2nd Amendment

[PurpleOwl]

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

Posts like this are ignorant.

which part of that is wrong?

Substitute racists for Republicans and you might have a statement close to reality. Instead you paint with a broad brush & not a drop of the paint landed on the barn.

same thing? why stop there? im sure not all racists want to remove all rights black people have? your stereotyping racists

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

Keywords PROBABLE CAUSE

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Posts like this are ignorant.

which part of that is wrong?

Substitute racists for Republicans and you might have a statement close to reality. Instead you paint with a broad brush & not a drop of the paint landed on the barn.

same thing? why stop there? im sure not all racists want to remove all rights black people have? your stereotyping racists

I'm about to stereotype you to ignore. I am trying to have a reasonable discussion and you're being a jackass

 

[PurpleOwl]

I can see how the program could be abused but just put in safety clauses to protect those abuses. For instance no policeman without a body camera on his person can actively stop & frisk anyone.

Bottom line it's time to be proactive instead of reactive

why does it matter if they have body cameras if its the legal for them stop and frisk?

They have to have probable cause to stop & frisk. It's not an open invitation to harass anyone you see.

no they can literally search whoever they want... thats why it was ruled unconstituional

 

[PurpleOwl]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

Keywords PROBABLE CAUSE

more lies

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I can see how the program could be abused but just put in safety clauses to protect those abuses. For instance no policeman without a body camera on his person can actively stop & frisk anyone.

Bottom line it's time to be proactive instead of reactive

why does it matter if they have body cameras if its the legal for them stop and frisk?

They have to have probable cause to stop & frisk. It's not an open invitation to harass anyone you see.

no they can literally search whoever they want... thats why it was ruled unconstituional

Wrong

 

[Nosmo King]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

Keywords PROBABLE CAUSE

Read on, McDuff. WARRANTS supported by OATH AND AFFIRMATION and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, court issued warrants.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

Keywords PROBABLE CAUSE

more lies

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

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

Posts like this are ignorant.

which part of that is wrong?

Substitute racists for Republicans and you might have a statement close to reality. Instead you paint with a broad brush & not a drop of the paint landed on the barn.

same thing? why stop there? im sure not all racists want to remove all rights black people have? your stereotyping racists

I'm about to stereotype you to ignore. I am trying to have a reasonable discussion and you're being a jackass

no your lying and distracting from the topic and being an asshole about it

 

[Nosmo King]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

Keywords PROBABLE CAUSE

more lies

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

keep reading...

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

 

[PurpleOwl]

I can see how the program could be abused but just put in safety clauses to protect those abuses. For instance no policeman without a body camera on his person can actively stop & frisk anyone.

Bottom line it's time to be proactive instead of reactive

why does it matter if they have body cameras if its the legal for them stop and frisk?

They have to have probable cause to stop & frisk. It's not an open invitation to harass anyone you see.

no they can literally search whoever they want... thats why it was ruled unconstituional

Wrong

your wrong

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

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?

 

[PurpleOwl]

Maybe the reason republicans think racism doesn't exist is because fox news and AM hate radio never covers it?

 

[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.

 

[PurpleOwl]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

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?

stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the 4th whats so hard for you to understand about that? are you fucking retarded or just messing with us?

do you even know what stop and frisk is?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

The question concerning stop and frisk should not be a 2nd amendment issue. It's clearly a fourth amendment issue.

Let's look at the fourth amendment:

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.

Now, I know that the gun lovers can quote the 2nd (but they usually fail to remember the opening clause). If the 2nd is worth the chaos of gun violence and should be jealously defended so such chaos can continue unabated, why is the 4th so easily dismissed?

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?