The Justice system, vs Some people's behavior

[Ice29]

If the Justice system is so rigged against the poor...
Or supposedly is....

Why is it that I have never turned down a Police officer's request to search me, because I have nothing to hide and I have 100,000,000,000,000 % absolute, pure confidence that I am going to leave FREE....
After the search ? (whether the search is legally justified or not).

Because it is simply not possible that I am going to be arrested ?

Why is it, that I can go to a baseball game, REGARDLESS of what security that they have, OR what their practices are, because I don't break the law in the first place ?

Why is it, that I have never turned down a police request to see either my ID, or my Social Security card or Both...
Because I have no warrants ?
It is simply a Statistical Impossibility, that I have a warrant out there somewhere against me !

Why is it, that all of the fights I have been in, have been in self defense, against an ordinary wiseguy on the street who thinks he's so smart...
But NEVER against real hardened thugs, like bouncers, and big time brand name Gangsters, because I don't hang around places where Gangs NOR Bouncers exist ?

Why is it, that I have more entertainment than what I could ever need or want...
And I never have had any trouble ?
Entertainment, you know... Sports, Movie Theaters, Casinos, Live theatrics, The Library, Museums, Zoos, Art Galleries, Parks, Restaurants, Shops and amusement parks..

I have had NO problem getting into an apartment that runs Criminal Background checks BEFORE renting out an Apartment ?

Never had any trouble in my life...
At least not the kind of trouble that could take my freedom away or take my life away.


So how is it the justice system, instead of some people's behavior ?


And I grew up poor.
I grew up in a shitty city and couldn't afford better.

 

[Clementine]

Good points. And you needn't worry about being shot while breaking into someone's home. I bet you don't fear random urine tests, either.

Police are doing their jobs. Sure, a small percent might be rogue, but most are taking their duties seriously. They know suspicious behavior when they see it.

I am sick of hearing that criminals have a right to break in homes or attack cops without getting shot. As if we're supposed to sit back and allow it and hope they don't hurt us. Maybe we should just leave valuables in an easily accessible place.

I've heard families claim that the criminal has to steal or that no one should be shot just for entering someone's house in the middle of the night. The problem is that these parents are raising children with the attitude that they are justified in committing crimes and that the police only arrest them because of race. Some actually do think that police turn a blind eye when they see whites committing the same crimes. It's that kind of stupidity that not only breeds criminals but causes the kind of riots we saw in Ferguson. People automatically cry racism when there is an encounter between any cops and blacks.

It's because they see nothing wrong with the behavior itself and everything wrong with cops (especially white cops) trying to stop them.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Why is it that I have never turned down a Police officer's request to search me, because I have nothing to hide and I have 100,000,000,000,000 % absolute, pure confidence that I am going to leave FREE....
After the search ? (whether the search is legally justified or not).

[...]

Searched -- for what?

The British Regulars ("redcoats,") often randomly searched Colonials on the streets and highways back in the 1700s. It was one of the bitter resentments that fueled the Revolution.

The purpose of the infamous "stop & frisk" policy instituted by Michael Bloomberg, New York City's then imperious multi-billionaire mayor was in response to increased gun violence. The cops were supposedly searching people for guns but a lot of arrests were made for marijuana and other "illegal" items that harm absolutely no one.

Giving police the right to stop and search citizens at will is a very dangerous policy. The best way to deal with guns in the hands of outlaws in a free society is a liberal armed citizens policy. Broaden the CCW right of ordinary citizens. There will be some mayhem at first, but in short order most of the bad guys will be dead or crippled and in prison.

An armed society is a polite society. Some problems need to be addressed by the People -- not the police.

 

[Ice29]

[...]

Why is it that I have never turned down a Police officer's request to search me, because I have nothing to hide and I have 100,000,000,000,000 % absolute, pure confidence that I am going to leave FREE....
After the search ? (whether the search is legally justified or not).

[...]

Searched -- for what?

The British Regulars ("redcoats,") often randomly searched Colonials on the streets and highways back in the 1700s. It was one of the bitter resentments that fueled the Revolution.

The purpose of the infamous "stop & frisk" policy instituted by Michael Bloomberg, New York City's then imperious multi-billionaire mayor was in response to increased gun violence. The cops were supposedly searching people for guns but a lot of arrests were made for marijuana and other "illegal" items that harm absolutely no one.

Giving police the right to stop and search citizens at will is a very dangerous policy. The best way to deal with guns in the hands of outlaws in a free society is a liberal armed citizens policy. Broaden the CCW right of ordinary citizens. There will be some mayhem at first, but in short order most of the bad guys will be dead or crippled and in prison.

An armed society is a polite society. Some problems need to be addressed by the People -- not the police.

Well then fuck you.
When you shoot a cop, I hope you get executed.
If you have marijuana, you should get 20 years, I don't give a fuck.
I don't hang around drug addicts.

Giving cops the right to search people is the best policy in the world, it keeps scumbags like you in line.

 

[MikeK]

Well then fuck you.

When you shoot a cop, I hope you get executed.
If you have marijuana, you should get 20 years, I don't give a fuck.
I don't hang around drug addicts.

Giving cops the right to search people is the best policy in the world, it keeps scumbags like you in line.

Thanks for telling us how you feel about being randomly stopped and searched.

Please tell us your thoughts on S&M (sado/masochistic) relationships. What do you think underlies the wish to be humiliated and abused by a dominant figure?

 

[Ice29]

Well then fuck you.

When you shoot a cop, I hope you get executed.
If you have marijuana, you should get 20 years, I don't give a fuck.
I don't hang around drug addicts.

Giving cops the right to search people is the best policy in the world, it keeps scumbags like you in line.

Thanks for telling us how you feel about being randomly stopped and searched.

Please tell us your thoughts on S&M (sado/masochistic) relationships. What do you think underlies the wish to be humiliated and abused by a dominant figure?

Because it isn't humiliating to me, nor is it abusive, because I'll walk away free, because I don't break the law and I don't hang around, or do business with those who do.

 

[Publius1787]

[...]

Why is it that I have never turned down a Police officer's request to search me, because I have nothing to hide and I have 100,000,000,000,000 % absolute, pure confidence that I am going to leave FREE....
After the search ? (whether the search is legally justified or not).

[...]

Searched -- for what?

The British Regulars ("redcoats,") often randomly searched Colonials on the streets and highways back in the 1700s. It was one of the bitter resentments that fueled the Revolution.

The purpose of the infamous "stop & frisk" policy instituted by Michael Bloomberg, New York City's then imperious multi-billionaire mayor was in response to increased gun violence. The cops were supposedly searching people for guns but a lot of arrests were made for marijuana and other "illegal" items that harm absolutely no one.

Giving police the right to stop and search citizens at will is a very dangerous policy. The best way to deal with guns in the hands of outlaws in a free society is a liberal armed citizens policy. Broaden the CCW right of ordinary citizens. There will be some mayhem at first, but in short order most of the bad guys will be dead or crippled and in prison.

An armed society is a polite society. Some problems need to be addressed by the People -- not the police.

Yes, but the British searched Colonials in order to enforce regulatory measures that the Colonials had no say in. They weren't searched for no reason though a tyrannical one. Stop and frisk, on all accounts, seems to have worked. And there was indeed a compelling interest to do so.

 

[MikeK]

Yes, but the British searched Colonials in order to enforce regulatory measures that the Colonials had no say in. They weren't searched for no reason though a tyrannical one. Stop and frisk, on all accounts, seems to have worked. And there was indeed a compelling interest to do so.

There is no question that a Stop & Frisk policy will produce positive results. The problem is it establishes a very dangerous precedent.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes, but the British searched Colonials in order to enforce regulatory measures that the Colonials had no say in. They weren't searched for no reason though a tyrannical one. Stop and frisk, on all accounts, seems to have worked. And there was indeed a compelling interest to do so.

There is no question that a Stop & Frisk policy will produce positive results. The problem is it establishes a very dangerous precedent.

Certainly we could press our heads together for a reasonable test of when such an action is justified considering both conflicting interests of differing rights.

 

[Disir]

[...]

Why is it that I have never turned down a Police officer's request to search me, because I have nothing to hide and I have 100,000,000,000,000 % absolute, pure confidence that I am going to leave FREE....
After the search ? (whether the search is legally justified or not).

[...]

Searched -- for what?

The British Regulars ("redcoats,") often randomly searched Colonials on the streets and highways back in the 1700s. It was one of the bitter resentments that fueled the Revolution.

The purpose of the infamous "stop & frisk" policy instituted by Michael Bloomberg, New York City's then imperious multi-billionaire mayor was in response to increased gun violence. The cops were supposedly searching people for guns but a lot of arrests were made for marijuana and other "illegal" items that harm absolutely no one.

Giving police the right to stop and search citizens at will is a very dangerous policy. The best way to deal with guns in the hands of outlaws in a free society is a liberal armed citizens policy. Broaden the CCW right of ordinary citizens. There will be some mayhem at first, but in short order most of the bad guys will be dead or crippled and in prison.

An armed society is a polite society. Some problems need to be addressed by the People -- not the police.

Because those items were illegal?

Groups inside the community ask for stop and frisk. Same thing happened all over the US and in London.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Groups inside the community ask for stop and frisk. Same thing happened all over the US and in London.

Back in the early 70s groups in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvestant (Black) community asked that White cops be replaced by Black cops because the White cops had demonstrated racial antagonism. So Mayor Beame complied. The White cops were replaced with all Blacks. Within three months there was an outcry by the entire neighborhood that the Black cops were far more brutal than the Whites and the replacement was reversed.

So officials cannot always be guided by requests or demands by community organizations. Because sometimes things are not as they seem or are expected to be.

While Stop & Frisk will be a good way to reduce gun violence, provided the cops adhere to a strict policy of focusing on individuals they might have cause to suspect of being armed. But because the gun problem exists mainly in Black ghetto areas, an obvious problem arises in that in order to avoid charges of discrimination a random number of Whites must be routinely searched.

Objectively, this is known as police harrassment. It is a glaring violation of the Fourth Amendment and it affords police with a level of power which is not consistent with life in a free society. In simple terms, Stop & Frisk is a positive policy which has substantially negative potential. It resides it the same category as random house-to-house searches, which is the next step. Just think how much crime could be eliminated if police were allowed to enter our homes at will to search for illegal items, just like the British Regulars used to do.

In contemplating this issue it occurs to me that maybe the solution to the problem of armed Black citizens is not the police -- but armed Whites citizens.

 

[Disir]

Mike, I love you. I do. This is what I heard you say:
1. Don't trust black officers in a black community.
2. Don't trust black members of a black community because they don't agree with your philosophy.
3. Arrests were made for crimes that you don't feel were appropriate because they don't fit a definition of what a crime ought to be.

I am not arguing that Stop and Frisk was the best solution. I am arguing that a feasible alternative needs to be presented and implemented as a solution for those that requested it in that very same community. I keep asking for this and so far there has been silence.

Ignoring those voices aids and abets racism.

So, who are those voices? We are talking about grandparents that can't walk down the street and parents whose children have been shot. People who have been robbed. This includes pastors and ministers and shop owners. All of this factors into that very same community "organization".

When you have people that are afraid to discuss whatever crime has taken place because of the repercussions it is because there absolutely are repercussions.

I dealt with a mother who had three children. One was a young teen. She had bars on the windows and bars on the doors that locked from the outside. When the kids were not in school then they were locked inside the house. She was not stupid and she knew that if there was a fire then her children were die; however, there was a higher risk of the kids getting shot if they went outside.

About those black officers.....Actually, it was a nationwide and they can have as many one sided little studies as they want. Note that when criminologists look at the number of arrests of suspects by black officers they do not say what the offense is. The reality is they are officers hired to do a job and a lot of people thought they were going to get off or it would be easier because the officer was black. That isn't the way it worked out.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't yield my privacy to any police, private enterprise, political or social stigmas.
My privacy is just that, my privacy.....If I have to suffer to exercise my rights then so be it...

 

[MikeK]

Mike, I love you. I do. This is what I heard you say:
1. Don't trust black officers in a black community.
2. Don't trust black members of a black community because they don't agree with your philosophy.
3. Arrests were made for crimes that you don't feel were appropriate because they don't fit a definition of what a crime ought to be.

I don't know how you arrived at those interpretations.

The Stop & Frisk policy in Mayor Bloomberg's New York City was implemented because of the rising number of shootings (Blacks shooting Blacks) in the Black communities of Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvestant. So the cops were told to accost and search (stop & frisk) anyone whom their instincts suggested might be carrying a gun.

The shootings that gave rise to that policy didn't take place in Flatbush, or Bay Ridge, or West End, or any other White neighborhood. So when the cops started searching only Blacks a charge of racist "profiling" arose from Al Sharpton and other Black community leaders. That led to the cops being quietly told to begin stopping and searching a percentage of Whites to offset the profiling charge.

My perception of that expedient policy modification was an epidemic of Blacks shooting other Blacks in Black neighborhoods held that non-Blacks could now be lawfully subjected to being stopped and searched at the whim of some cops, which glaringly violates my Fourth Amendment protection -- and I wasn't alone in that perception. And when this challenge by Whites arose they were told they shouldn't disagree with the Stop & Frisk policy because the rising number of armed Blacks was an impending threat to White people as well.

In effect I was being told that in order to be protected from armed Blacks I must surrender an important Constitutional protection. My impression of that is New York City government has already violated my Second Amendment right by telling me I may not carry a concealed firearm, now they are telling me I no longer have Fourth Amendment protections. What's next?

My response to that is I prefer they restore my Second Amendment right to be armed and I'll worry about protecting myself. This was my way of telling government to tell Al Sharpton to go screw himself!

The problem exists in Black neighborhoods and the perpetrators are Black -- not White. So the "profiling" is necessary and valid. And I'm sure those oppressed and intimidated Black residents of those affected Black neighborhoods whom you've talked about will agree with me.

Just as you should.