"Stop and frisk" fascism vs. 2nd Amendment

[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.

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.

wrong administration dumbass

 

[Nosmo King]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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.

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.

yes they literally fucking did, many cops were recorded and testified why dont republicans know about this shit?

here's the wiki page maybe if you people spent less time demonizing BLM and claiming they have nothing to complain about, you might know about this stuff

Stop-and-frisk in New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

More of your mindless nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Nothing here is supportable by anything found in reality.

 

[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

Nothing here is supportable by anything found in reality.

which part is wrong?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Stop & Frisk is an attempt to curb rampant crime & murder. You think it's a bad program, fine. What is your solution to the problem?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Yes, and the Supreme Court has ruled that such searches are not unconstitutional is the 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]

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Stop & Frisk is an attempt to curb rampant crime & murder. You think it's a bad program, fine. What is your solution to the problem?

so your a fascist who thinks blacks and hispanics shouldn't have rights

 

[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.

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?

It seems to me that the numbers speak for themselves...If you have nothing to hide, you will be happy to see that the police are KEEPING YOU ALIVE.....As the left wants, the Constitution is a living document that can be adjusted to today's world of thugs, Muslim terrorist murders, and robbing, raping and murdering illegals!....Up to our if you want to keep being a victim when the threat can be erradicatef by a 2 minute inconvenience!

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Yes, and the Supreme Court has ruled that such searches are not unconstitutional is the 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]

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are you saying that not being white is reasonable suspicion of being armed? because thats why they were searching them

 

[Nosmo King]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Stop & Frisk is an attempt to curb rampant crime & murder. You think it's a bad program, fine. What is your solution to the problem?

Follow the law. That applies to both cop and criminal. If you want to dismiss fourth amendment protections, let's then compromise on second amendment answers.

 

[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.

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?

It seems to me that the numbers speak for themselves...If you have nothing to hide, you will be happy to see that the police are KEEPING YOU ALIVE.....As the left wants, the Constitution is a living document that can be adjusted to today's world of thugs, Muslim terrorist murders, and robbing, raping and murdering illegals!....Up to our if you want to keep being a victim when the threat can be erradicatef by a 2 minute inconvenience!

then your a racist fascist who doesn't believe in the bill of rights unless it applies to him..... once you admit that then we can explain why thats wrong

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Stop & Frisk is an attempt to curb rampant crime & murder. You think it's a bad program, fine. What is your solution to the problem?

Follow the law. That applies to both cop and criminal. If you want to dismiss fourth amendment protections, let's then compromise on second amendment answers.

There is no compromise on the 4th outside of your imagination

 

[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?

It seems to me that the numbers speak for themselves...If you have nothing to hide, you will be happy to see that the police are KEEPING YOU ALIVE.....As the left wants, the Constitution is a living document that can be adjusted to today's world of thugs, Muslim terrorist murders, and robbing, raping and murdering illegals!....Up to our if you want to keep being a victim when the threat can be erradicatef by a 2 minute inconvenience!

So you believe that the fourth amendment can be compromised. What about the second? What makes one amendment more valuable than others?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

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.

yes they literally fucking did, many cops were recorded and testified why dont republicans know about this shit?

here's the wiki page maybe if you people spent less time demonizing BLM and claiming they have nothing to complain about, you might know about this stuff

Stop-and-frisk in New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is nothing in the article that says it was department policy to stop and frisk people because of race; it simply says some officers and their commanders may have acted improperly, and that calls for more training and perhaps some discipline but not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Stop & Frisk is an attempt to curb rampant crime & murder. You think it's a bad program, fine. What is your solution to the problem?

Follow the law. That applies to both cop and criminal. If you want to dismiss fourth amendment protections, let's then compromise on second amendment answers.

There is no compromise on the 4th outside of your imagination

Warrantless searches and seizure comes immediately to my imagination, how about yours?

 

[PurpleOwl]

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.

yes they literally fucking did, many cops were recorded and testified why dont republicans know about this shit?

here's the wiki page maybe if you people spent less time demonizing BLM and claiming they have nothing to complain about, you might know about this stuff

Stop-and-frisk in New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is nothing in the article that says it was department policy to stop and frisk people because of race; it simply says some officers and their commanders may have acted improperly, and that calls for more training and perhaps some discipline but not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.

even though they found more guns on whites?
https://thinkprogress.org/white-peo...ve-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities-9bf579a2b9b3
you could stop a lot of crime if you let police search peoples houses whenever they feel like

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Stop & Frisk is an attempt to curb rampant crime & murder. You think it's a bad program, fine. What is your solution to the problem?

Follow the law. That applies to both cop and criminal. If you want to dismiss fourth amendment protections, let's then compromise on second amendment answers.

There is no compromise on the 4th outside of your imagination

Warrantless searches and seizure comes immediately to my imagination, how about yours?

no matter what you say he wont change his mind... he doesn't even know what stop and frisk is, he's learning about it for the first time now, he just knows black people dont like it, so it must be good

 

[Nosmo King]

What are the criteria for a stop and frisk? And why do you think it conforms to the 4th amendment? What about the fifth amendment?

Let's take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems as if anything seized during a warrantless stop and frisk can be used as evidence against a suspect. That evidence serves as a witness and was seized without consent.

Stop & Frisk is an attempt to curb rampant crime & murder. You think it's a bad program, fine. What is your solution to the problem?

Follow the law. That applies to both cop and criminal. If you want to dismiss fourth amendment protections, let's then compromise on second amendment answers.

There is no compromise on the 4th outside of your imagination

Warrantless searches and seizure comes immediately to my imagination, how about yours?

no matter what you say he wont change his mind... he doesn't even know what stop and frisk is, he's learning about it for the first time now, he just knows black people dont like it, so it must be good

That's not fair. I don't imagine any racism on his part. I just want to understand why some constitutional protections are more valuable than others. If the 2nd amendment is to be defended until death (and that's an apt description when one considers to chaos of gun violence and the intractable arguments of gun lovers), why is the fourth amendment so easily dismissed?