Why Shouldn't We Make Stop And Frisk Nationwide Policy??

[Superbadbrutha]

I

So how do they choose who to question?

Go into known high crime areas and stop men age 16-35

Even in high crime areas everyone isn't guilty of crime, so how do you choose and why limit it to just high crime areas.

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about.

That's cool, as long as, they are in the white neighborhoods just randomly stopping folks as well.

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

What is the criteria for who is stopped?

have already given you the criteria

males between the age of 18 and 35 in high crime neighborhoods

Sorry you can't just stop folks because of age and color.

 

[Mac-7]

I

Go into known high crime areas and stop men age 16-35

Even in high crime areas everyone isn't guilty of crime, so how do you choose and why limit it to just high crime areas.

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about.

That's cool, as long as, they are in the white neighborhoods just randomly stopping folks as well.

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

What is the criteria for who is stopped?

have already given you the criteria

males between the age of 18 and 35 in high crime neighborhoods

Sorry you can't just stop folks because of age and color.

Which I was careful not to do

 

[Papageorgio]

I think we need to do like the airports, only search 80 year old men and women who have had knees, hips and shoulders replaced, that is where the crime is.

 

[Indeependent]

Stop & Frisk was a total failure because it cut the crime rate 90%...That’s how a Liberal looks at it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Sean Hannity blasts Bloomberg 'stop and frisk' comments: 'It's alarming, it's revealing'

The attacks that Bloomberg is receiving for his comments about "Stop & Frisk" and about the policy in general is very unfair and it needs to stop.....Stop & Frisk is the most important law enforcement policy in the last 100 years....

"Sean Hannity ripped Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg after audio of him defending "stop and frisk" and making other controversial comments about minorities resurfaced this week. 'It's alarming. It's revealing," Hannity said Tuesday on his television program. "In fact, it is so bad some in his own party are now accusing him of actually being a racist."

Oh cut the crap Sean, you know damn well Bloomberg isn't racist and his comments aren't shocking because you made similar comments yourself....you love Stop & Frisk, so why pretend its so bad now??

Truth of the matter is, Trump will win re-election by a landslide if he runs on making Stop and Frisk a national policy...We all know that 95% of the crime in most of the country are committed by blacks -- There should also be targeted curfew laws against blacks, because this too has been an effective law enforcement policy going back to the 1850's...maybe a way to build Republican party unity between the non-racists and the racists is to be willing to deputize white nationalist militia groups to enforce curfews and aid the police in getting the blacks in line...this will also give white nationalists a source of pride that they are taking their country back -- that way they won't be freaking out about government tyranny anymore..

I know some may cry racism or complain that it unfairly targets all blacks, but I am sure the "good blacks" would understand the need to have this policy and maybe it will make them get off their asses and police their own communities for a change...if they don't like being treated second class, then they shouldn't act like second class...I admit, it will be better if Candace or Diamond & Silk were the face of this, maybe Kanye can make a catchy hip hop rap about the need for Stop & Frisk, but I think it can be a winning policy in 2020.

Everything you posted is a lie. Stop and frisk, as a policy was an abject failure, and violates the civil rights of those stopped. The essence of a free nation is that the police have to have "probable cause" to detain you.

The fact that stop and frisk has been disproportionately used against racial minorities, is indicative of a white supremacist society. If you're a minority, the police can do anything they want to you, at any time, and you are powerless.

88% of those stopped, thrown against the wall, and publically humiliated, were released without charges. Most of the rest were charged with minor infractions like carrying personal amounts of marijuana. This is not how a free society treats their law abiding citizens.

Off course Biff likes the idea. It keeps the blacks in their place, and let's them know who's in charge. When they start throwing the white sons of doctors and lawyers up against the wall and subjecting them to stop and frisk, he'd be the first to scream "Constitutional rights".

Let the slow but steady march to a dictatorship continue.

 

[miketx]

If there is no probable cause then any search is unconstitutional



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Noticed I wrote Stop and then question and then frisk.

First they will run my name and when it had a hit they would search me and then let me go while telling me to get that nonsense fixed.

The cops had every right to search me because of the warrant...

So how do they choose who to question?

Go into known high crime areas and stop men age 16-35

Even in high crime areas everyone isn't guilty of crime, so how do you choose and why limit it to just high crime areas.

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

If they are arrested for carrying a weapon and that is all, that is unconstitutional.

 

[Mac-7]

Noticed I wrote Stop and then question and then frisk.

First they will run my name and when it had a hit they would search me and then let me go while telling me to get that nonsense fixed.

The cops had every right to search me because of the warrant...

So how do they choose who to question?

Go into known high crime areas and stop men age 16-35

Even in high crime areas everyone isn't guilty of crime, so how do you choose and why limit it to just high crime areas.

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

If they are arrested for carrying a weapon and that is all, that is unconstitutional.

Not if it is illegal for them to be carrying that weapon

 

[miketx]

So how do they choose who to question?

Go into known high crime areas and stop men age 16-35

Even in high crime areas everyone isn't guilty of crime, so how do you choose and why limit it to just high crime areas.

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

If they are arrested for carrying a weapon and that is all, that is unconstitutional.

Not if it is illegal for them to be carrying that weapon

They wouldn't know that if they didn't illegally stop him to begin with.

 

[Likkmee]

****** is dangerous !

 

[Mac-7]

Go into known high crime areas and stop men age 16-35

Even in high crime areas everyone isn't guilty of crime, so how do you choose and why limit it to just high crime areas.

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

If they are arrested for carrying a weapon and that is all, that is unconstitutional.

Not if it is illegal for them to be carrying that weapon

They wouldn't know that if they didn't illegally stop him to begin with.

Stop and Frisk may be unpopular but its not illegal according to the courts

 

[miketx]

Even in high crime areas everyone isn't guilty of crime, so how do you choose and why limit it to just high crime areas.

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

If they are arrested for carrying a weapon and that is all, that is unconstitutional.

Not if it is illegal for them to be carrying that weapon

They wouldn't know that if they didn't illegally stop him to begin with.

Stop and Frisk may be unpopular but its not illegal according to the courts

Courts are stacked with commies.

 

[Mac-7]

If they are not carrying a weapon or illegal drugs they have nothing to worry about

Removing the ones who are carrying a weapon will lead to a lower murder rate in that community

If they are arrested for carrying a weapon and that is all, that is unconstitutional.

Not if it is illegal for them to be carrying that weapon

They wouldn't know that if they didn't illegally stop him to begin with.

Stop and Frisk may be unpopular but its not illegal according to the courts

Courts are stacked with commies.

The real disgrace is not holding felons longer than 24 hours who are caught with an illegal firearm

 

[sealybobo]

I know you were laughing your ass off when you posted that bullshit.

It's funny when Bloomberg considered running in 2020, the first thing Trump threw at him was Stop and Frisk. But today Trump is promising to bring it back, while courting black voters. And polls say a lot of Republicans are falling for it.

Still, former President Donald Trump wants to bring it back.

Trump courts Black men as he pledges return to a policy that disproportionately targeted them

More than 2 million Black men have been stopped and frisked by police before the practice was deemed unconstitutional.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[there4eyeM]

Everything you posted is a lie. Stop and frisk, as a policy was an abject failure, and violates the civil rights of those stopped. The essence of a free nation is that the police have to have "probable cause" to detain you.

The fact that stop and frisk has been disproportionately used against racial minorities, is indicative of a white supremacist society. If you're a minority, the police can do anything they want to you, at any time, and you are powerless.

88% of those stopped, thrown against the wall, and publically humiliated, were released without charges. Most of the rest were charged with minor infractions like carrying personal amounts of marijuana. This is not how a free society treats their law abiding citizens.

Off course Biff likes the idea. It keeps the blacks in their place, and let's them know who's in charge. When they start throwing the white sons of doctors and lawyers up against the wall and subjecting them to stop and frisk, he'd be the first to scream "Constitutional rights".

Let the slow but steady march to a dictatorship continue.

"Probable cause" was mortally wounded when MADD got the Supreme Court to approve arbitrarily stopping vehicles. The slippery slope people like to talk about was evident when that issue came up, and too many people were willing to slide on down.

 

[Dragonlady]

"Probable cause" was mortally wounded when MADD got the Supreme Court to approve arbitrarily stopping vehicles. The slippery slope people like to talk about was evident when that issue came up, and too many people were willing to slide on down.

There is a vast difference between stopping everyone for any alcohol check and "stop and frisk" wherein the police make a judgement call about someone "looking" dodgy. It's the judgement of who "looks dodgy" wherein the racial discrimination comes into play.

 

[pknopp]

There is a vast difference between stopping everyone for any alcohol check and "stop and frisk" wherein the police make a judgement call about someone "looking" dodgy. It's the judgement of who "looks dodgy" wherein the racial discrimination comes into play.

I don't think it's any better to assume everyone guilty as it is just some.

No one should be without a reasonable cause.

 

[Dr.Know]

Bloomberg is a tyrant and a control freak, and that has nothing to do with stop and frisk. Why do leftists want to be controlled by big government?

Because leftists are usually damaged in some way and need the Government to give they free shit.

Leftists are Collectivists and Rightists are Individuals. Collectivists need a VILLAGE to survive, they cannot survive on their own.

 

[there4eyeM]

Thr presumption of culpability is reprehensible in anything calling itself a free society. The context of a police officer experienced on the street interpreting someone's actions is not the same as simply stopping a car moving about like all the others. There could be professional, experienced judgement involved. There is nuance. The principle must remain that one is assumed innocent when no indication otherwise is reasonable.

 

[22lcidw]

I don't think it's any better to assume everyone guilty as it is just some.

No one should be without a reasonable cause.

Its local law enforcement and the judicial entities that ruin it. It sounds good. If you are the one profiled endless times it is an abuse. Difficult to forget. Yet as someone else spewed it reduces crime. A lot of people do not get attorneys. And there are a huge number of lawsuits as it is. If this gets out of control, there may be a litigious movement against local authorities.