"Stop and frisk" fascism vs. 2nd Amendment

[toomuchtime_]

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

That was never department policy, but some officers and commanders may have behaved improperly in this respect. That calls for more training, not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.

Does an army stop fighting because some of its soldiers and officers may have behaved improperly? Of course not, it corrects the mistakes and continues with its mission. The New York court never, in fact, ordered the end of stop and frisk, it merely ordered close monitoring and a series of reforms of the program. It was a political decision by the mayor that ended the program. Stop and frisk programs are clearly constitutional and save lives.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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?

well thats your problem, instead of accepting the obvious you need to create a complicated and impossibe to understand reasoning, behind their actions, when in reality he is just a racist asshole, and theres nothing else that needs to be understood

 

[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.

which part is wrong?

Fallacy: Begging the question.
My point is you cannot prove any part of your statement to be true..

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

That was never department policy, but some officers and commanders may have behaved improperly in this respect. That calls for more training, not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.

Does an army stop fighting because some of its soldiers and officers may have behaved improperly? Of course not, it corrects the mistakes and continues with its mission. The New York court never, in fact, ordered the end of stop and frisk, it merely ordered close monitoring and a series of reforms of the program. It was a political decision by the mayor that ended the program. Stop and frisk programs are clearly constitutional and save lives.

many cops testified to the opposite, and the same article i posted showed they were also ineffective 89% of the people stopped had no contraband, try again

 

[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?

Fallacy: Begging the question.
My point is you cannot prove any part of your statement to be true..

which part do you think isn't true?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

You are making a case for reforms within the program, not for ending the program.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

well thats your problem, instead of accepting the obvious you need to create a complicated and impossibe to understand reasoning, behind their actions, when in reality he is just a racist asshole, and theres nothing else that needs to be understood

WTF? Lol

This isnt about race. This kind of nonsensical post is why some of you end up on ignore.
I don't believe if implemented properly the program is inherently bad. It was proven to have reduced crime & murder.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

You are making a case for reforms within the program, not for ending the program.

an ineffective racist program that was deemed unconstitutional? why do you want to keep it? is it because it doesnt effect white people and your white and everyone else can go screw themselves?how republican of you

 

[PurpleOwl]

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?

well thats your problem, instead of accepting the obvious you need to create a complicated and impossibe to understand reasoning, behind their actions, when in reality he is just a racist asshole, and theres nothing else that needs to be understood

WTF? Lol

This isnt about race. This kind of nonsensical post is why some of you end up on ignore.
I don't believe if implemented properly the program is inherently bad. It was proven to have reduced crime & murder.

no it wasn't again another lie from you, you dont even know what stop and frisk is, instead of looking stupid try asking questions

 

[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.

which part is wrong?

Fallacy: Begging the question.
My point is you cannot prove any part of your statement to be true..

which part do you think isn't true?

Allow me to repeat:
You cannot prove any part of your statement to be true.
And so, your statement merits no discussion.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

That was never department policy, but some officers and commanders may have behaved improperly in this respect. That calls for more training, not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.

Does an army stop fighting because some of its soldiers and officers may have behaved improperly? Of course not, it corrects the mistakes and continues with its mission. The New York court never, in fact, ordered the end of stop and frisk, it merely ordered close monitoring and a series of reforms of the program. It was a political decision by the mayor that ended the program. Stop and frisk programs are clearly constitutional and save lives.

many cops testified to the opposite, and the same article i posted showed they were also ineffective 89% of the people stopped had no contraband, try again

That's a misleading statistic. The purpose of the program was to prevent violent crime, not just to catch criminals. If potential criminals know there is a high likelihood they will be stopped and frisked if they are illegally carrying guns, they are less likely to be carrying guns, and that means there will be fewer shootings and deaths. Murders dropping from 2,000 a year to 500 a year is the relevant statistic.

 

[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?

Fallacy: Begging the question.
My point is you cannot prove any part of your statement to be true..

which part do you think isn't true?

Allow me to repeat:
You cannot prove any part of your statement to be true.
And so, your statement merits no discussion.

who says i want to discuss it with you?

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

That was never department policy, but some officers and commanders may have behaved improperly in this respect. That calls for more training, not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.

Does an army stop fighting because some of its soldiers and officers may have behaved improperly? Of course not, it corrects the mistakes and continues with its mission. The New York court never, in fact, ordered the end of stop and frisk, it merely ordered close monitoring and a series of reforms of the program. It was a political decision by the mayor that ended the program. Stop and frisk programs are clearly constitutional and save lives.

many cops testified to the opposite, and the same article i posted showed they were also ineffective 89% of the people stopped had no contraband, try again

That's a misleading statistic. The purpose of the program was to prevent violent crime, not just to catch criminals. If potential criminals know there is a high likelihood they will be stopped and frisked if they are illegally carrying guns, they are less likely to be carrying guns, and that means there will be fewer shootings and deaths. Murders dropping from 2,000 a year to 500 a year is the relevant statistic.

that didnt happen under stop and frisk much less because of it, did you just find out about it today too?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing here is supportable by anything found in reality.

which part is wrong?

Fallacy: Begging the question.
My point is you cannot prove any part of your statement to be true..

which part do you think isn't true?

Allow me to repeat:
You cannot prove any part of your statement to be true.
And so, your statement merits no discussion.

who says i want to discuss it with you?

Ah. So you're a troll.
Thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

 

[PurpleOwl]

which part is wrong?

Fallacy: Begging the question.
My point is you cannot prove any part of your statement to be true..

which part do you think isn't true?

Allow me to repeat:
You cannot prove any part of your statement to be true.
And so, your statement merits no discussion.

who says i want to discuss it with you?

Ah. So you're a troll.
Thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

well thanks for adding absolutely nothing but personal attacks, you can fuck right off for all i care

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

You are making a case for reforms within the program, not for ending the program.

an ineffective racist program that was deemed unconstitutional? why do you want to keep it? is it because it doesnt effect white people and your white and everyone else can go screw themselves?how republican of you

If being Republican means you want to save the lives of innocent people, then that is something to be proud of, and if being a Democrat means a willingness to through away the lives of innocent people because a program is unpopular with your base supporters, then being a Democrat is something to be ashamed of.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

well thats your problem, instead of accepting the obvious you need to create a complicated and impossibe to understand reasoning, behind their actions, when in reality he is just a racist asshole, and theres nothing else that needs to be understood

WTF? Lol

This isnt about race. This kind of nonsensical post is why some of you end up on ignore.
I don't believe if implemented properly the program is inherently bad. It was proven to have reduced crime & murder.

no it wasn't again another lie from you, you dont even know what stop and frisk is, instead of looking stupid try asking questions

Simply stomping your feet & making wild assumptions does not constitute a position worthy of debate. Thus far that is all you have accomplished.
I think it's past time for you to get a much needed vacation. Bye bye

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

You are making a case for reforms within the program, not for ending the program.

an ineffective racist program that was deemed unconstitutional? why do you want to keep it? is it because it doesnt effect white people and your white and everyone else can go screw themselves?how republican of you

If being Republican means you want to save the lives of innocent people, then that is something to be proud of, and if being a Democrat means a willingness to through away the lives of innocent people because a program is unpopular with your base supporters, then being a Democrat is something to be ashamed of.

genocidal republicans want to murder imprison or enslave every non white person in america they dont give a shit about anybones lives, but their own, if you think otherwise your insane

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

That was never department policy, but some officers and commanders may have behaved improperly in this respect. That calls for more training, not ending a program that saved hundreds of lives.

Does an army stop fighting because some of its soldiers and officers may have behaved improperly? Of course not, it corrects the mistakes and continues with its mission. The New York court never, in fact, ordered the end of stop and frisk, it merely ordered close monitoring and a series of reforms of the program. It was a political decision by the mayor that ended the program. Stop and frisk programs are clearly constitutional and save lives.

many cops testified to the opposite, and the same article i posted showed they were also ineffective 89% of the people stopped had no contraband, try again

That's a misleading statistic. The purpose of the program was to prevent violent crime, not just to catch criminals. If potential criminals know there is a high likelihood they will be stopped and frisked if they are illegally carrying guns, they are less likely to be carrying guns, and that means there will be fewer shootings and deaths. Murders dropping from 2,000 a year to 500 a year is the relevant statistic.

that didnt happen under stop and frisk much less because of it, did you just find out about it today too?

Of course it did, but it's an inconvenient statistic for Democrats who want to use race as a political issue.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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?

well thats your problem, instead of accepting the obvious you need to create a complicated and impossibe to understand reasoning, behind their actions, when in reality he is just a racist asshole, and theres nothing else that needs to be understood

WTF? Lol

This isnt about race. This kind of nonsensical post is why some of you end up on ignore.
I don't believe if implemented properly the program is inherently bad. It was proven to have reduced crime & murder.

no it wasn't again another lie from you, you dont even know what stop and frisk is, instead of looking stupid try asking questions

Simply stomping your feet & making wild assumptions does not constitute a position worthy of debate. Thus far that is all you have accomplished.
I think it's past time for you to get a much needed vacation. Bye bye

youve done nothing but spread lies, and misinformation thats easily fact checked is that what you call a debate? being an asshole and making people look things up on wikipedia for you? you must be voting for trump