Another Blow to Racial Profiling: "Stop & Frisk" Ended by Courts

[Sunshine]

It's a moot point. The SCOTUS opined on the Terry case in 1968. Stop and frisk is illegal without reasonable suspicion. Well, except in airports where all you have to be is a granny with a joint replacement to get stopped and frisked.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do I get the impression that all you supporters of Stop and Frisk might have a different view if you got "stopped and frisked" by the NYPD?

You know, they do stop and frisk white people too...

Why do I get the sense that all of you opposed to stop and frisk have never lived in crime ridden black neighborhoods?

You'd be wrong.

Do you live in NY?

I did for 18 years.
Next.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nonsense.

That is not nonsense by any stretch of the imagination but rather accepted fact. The ends DOES NOT justify the means or all sorts of horrific instances become justified. It was one of the primary justifications in eugenics. If the ends is all that matters then there should be no reason why I don’t kill off anyone that is ‘undesirable.’

Reductio ad absurdum. We justify the means by the end every single day in countless small situations. When we get to larger issues we can debate whether the means really justify the end or not. Whatever it is, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

No its not. It’s a document that outlines the restriction on government in order to secure our natural born rights. Rights that you are willing to sacrifice to feel safe.

You are a liberal in conservative shoes. There is no other way to say it. That is exactly what they want to do also. I guess the NSA spying program and the drone strike programs are fine with you; they also keep you safe.

Sorry, I will not resign to a statist mindset simply because I like the state controlled police.

By the way, it’s not a reducto ad absurdum. I have not taken your argument to any extreme. I have revealed that your ‘logic’ justifies ANYTHING. Period. You can’t refute that so you have falsely claimed a fallacy. Oh, it also fits pretty well with Argument from fallacy as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is not nonsense by any stretch of the imagination but rather accepted fact. The ends DOES NOT justify the means or all sorts of horrific instances become justified. It was one of the primary justifications in eugenics. If the ends is all that matters then there should be no reason why I don’t kill off anyone that is ‘undesirable.’

Reductio ad absurdum. We justify the means by the end every single day in countless small situations. When we get to larger issues we can debate whether the means really justify the end or not. Whatever it is, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

No its not. It’s a document that outlines the restriction on government in order to secure our natural born rights. Rights that you are willing to sacrifice to feel safe.

You are a liberal in conservative shoes. There is no other way to say it. That is exactly what they want to do also. I guess the NSA spying program and the drone strike programs are fine with you; they also keep you safe.

Sorry, I will not resign to a statist mindset simply because I like the state controlled police.

Yeahyeah
Why is it every narco-libtard brain dead internet expert when challenged on a view immediately resorts to calling people "statists"? I guess if your belief system isn't terribly well thought out then throwing out cliches and memes ("a document that outlines restriction on government"--absolute bullshit. You've never read it obviously) is a good cover.

 

[FA_Q2]

Reductio ad absurdum. We justify the means by the end every single day in countless small situations. When we get to larger issues we can debate whether the means really justify the end or not. Whatever it is, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

No its not. It’s a document that outlines the restriction on government in order to secure our natural born rights. Rights that you are willing to sacrifice to feel safe.

You are a liberal in conservative shoes. There is no other way to say it. That is exactly what they want to do also. I guess the NSA spying program and the drone strike programs are fine with you; they also keep you safe.

Sorry, I will not resign to a statist mindset simply because I like the state controlled police.

Yeahyeah
Why is it every narco-libtard brain dead internet expert when challenged on a view immediately resorts to calling people "statists"? I guess if your belief system isn't terribly well thought out then throwing out cliches and memes ("a document that outlines restriction on government"--absolute bullshit. You've never read it obviously) is a good cover.

When you support increasing the power of the state to the point of overriding the 4th amendment, what should I call you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why do I get the sense that all of you opposed to stop and frisk have never lived in crime ridden black neighborhoods?

You'd be wrong.

Do you live in NY?

I did for 18 years.
Next.

Where?

I lived in Bed Stuy, Crown Heights and various other parts of Brooklyn for 28 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

You'd be wrong.

Do you live in NY?

I did for 18 years.
Next.

Where?

I lived in Bed Stuy, Crown Heights and various other parts of Brooklyn for 28 years.

But not Brownsville, amiright? My mother actually lived there for some part of her life.

 

[George Costanza]

No its not. It’s a document that outlines the restriction on government in order to secure our natural born rights. Rights that you are willing to sacrifice to feel safe.

You are a liberal in conservative shoes. There is no other way to say it. That is exactly what they want to do also. I guess the NSA spying program and the drone strike programs are fine with you; they also keep you safe.

Sorry, I will not resign to a statist mindset simply because I like the state controlled police.

Yeahyeah
Why is it every narco-libtard brain dead internet expert when challenged on a view immediately resorts to calling people "statists"? I guess if your belief system isn't terribly well thought out then throwing out cliches and memes ("a document that outlines restriction on government"--absolute bullshit. You've never read it obviously) is a good cover.

When you support increasing the power of the state to the point of overriding the 4th amendment, what should I call you?

An authoritarian.

 

[George Costanza]

It's a moot point. The SCOTUS opined on the Terry case in 1968. Stop and frisk is illegal without reasonable suspicion. Well, except in airports where all you have to be is a granny with a joint replacement to get stopped and frisked.

California imposes a condition of probation/parole called a "search waiver condition." What it means, basically, is that anyone on probation or parole no longer has the benefit of the 4th Amendment. They can be searched by police at any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant or probable cause.

As a consequence of this, police will go up to someone on the street, otherwise minding their own business and, after the obligatory, "how ya doin' tonight?", the next question is: "Are you on probation or parole?" If the answer is yes, game over. If the answer is no, the next question is: "Do you have anything illegal on your person?" If the anwer is yes, game over. If the answer is no: "Mind if we search you?" If the answer is no, game over. If the answer is yes - well, I have yet to see a case where anyone has the presence of mind (or the balls) to answer yes, they would mind (largely because of what would happen thereafter, i.e., arrested for resisiting).

Is all of this legal? Yup. Good ol' California's pretentious version of Stop and Frisk, in action as we speak. They call it a "consensual encounter" where the judiciary turns its hypocritical back on the common sense fact that when a cop walks up to someone and starts talking to them, very few folks are going to have the presence of mind to just keep walking.

Tip: if you are confronted by a cop who wants to know "how ya doin'?", look the sucker in the eye and say: "Officer, before I tell you how I'm doin', let me ask you a question. Am I being detained?" If he says no, then say: "Well, in that case, I'll just be on my way. And you have a nice evening." If he says yes, you are being detained, then tell him you aren't going to say shit to him unless and until you have a lawyer standing by your side.

Of course, in the interests of reality, you would be much more courteous with the officer than I am indicating in my example here - wouldn't want to be guilty of contempt of cop.

 

[Sunshine]

It's a moot point. The SCOTUS opined on the Terry case in 1968. Stop and frisk is illegal without reasonable suspicion. Well, except in airports where all you have to be is a granny with a joint replacement to get stopped and frisked.

California imposes a condition of probation/parole called a "search waiver condition." What it means, basically, is that anyone on probation or parole no longer has the benefit of the 4th Amendment. They can be searched by police at any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant or probable cause.

As a consequence of this, police will go up to someone on the street, otherwise minding their own business and, after the obligatory, "how ya doin' tonight?", the next question is: "Are you on probation or parole?" If the answer is yes, game over. If the answer is no, the next question is: "Do you have anything illegal on your person?" If the anwer is yes, game over. If the answer is no: "Mind if we search you?" If the answer is no, game over. If the answer is yes - well, I have yet to see a case where anyone has the presence of mind (or the balls) to answer yes, they would mind (largely because of what would happen thereafter, i.e., arrested for resisiting).

Is all of this legal? Yup. Good ol' California's pretentious version of Stop and Frisk, in action as we speak. They call it a "consensual encounter" where the judiciary turns its hypocritical back on the common sense fact that when a cop walks up to someone and starts talking to them, very few folks are going to have the presence of mind to just keep walking.

Tip: if you are confronted by a cop who wants to know "how ya doin'?", look the sucker in the eye and say: "Officer, before I tell you how I'm doin', let me ask you a question. Am I being detained?" If he says no, then say: "Well, in that case, I'll just be on my way. And you have a nice evening." If he says yes, you are being detained, then tell him you aren't going to say shit to him unless and until you have a lawyer standing by your side.

Of course, in the interests of reality, you would be much more courteous with the officer than I am indicating in my example here - wouldn't want to be guilty of contempt of cop.

Well, criminals aren't the smartest people on the planet. When I provided NP services in those two prisons, I told my friends that George Clooney getting out of prison and then completing the perfect crime is just a movie plot. They aren't there because they are smart. I can't imagine they would be any smarter walking down the street. I have had several encounters with cops and their usual question to me is, 'do you know why I stopped you?' I don't think I've ever said no, but I usually give some noncommittal answer. I've never been stopped walking down the street. I get searched in the airport every time I fly because I have two joint replacements. That is rather irksome. It generally pisses them off when I act like I am enjoying it. And I always wear something that leaves the joints which have been replaced exposed. Now, I have a medication pump. The last trip I took I offered 4 different times to show it to the TSA agent, going and coming. I wear it strapped around my waist. All 4 times they declined. God forbid that you piss off a disabled person. I would feel much better about them wanting to see the pump which measures about 4 x 8 and weighs around 2 pounds than I do about them repeatedly scanning my joint replacements with a wand. I can't wait to go to Hawaii. The Constitution got checked at the door of every airport in the US.

 

[Asclepias]

It's a moot point. The SCOTUS opined on the Terry case in 1968. Stop and frisk is illegal without reasonable suspicion. Well, except in airports where all you have to be is a granny with a joint replacement to get stopped and frisked.

California imposes a condition of probation/parole called a "search waiver condition." What it means, basically, is that anyone on probation or parole no longer has the benefit of the 4th Amendment. They can be searched by police at any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant or probable cause.

As a consequence of this, police will go up to someone on the street, otherwise minding their own business and, after the obligatory, "how ya doin' tonight?", the next question is: "Are you on probation or parole?" If the answer is yes, game over. If the answer is no, the next question is: "Do you have anything illegal on your person?" If the anwer is yes, game over. If the answer is no: "Mind if we search you?" If the answer is no, game over. If the answer is yes - well, I have yet to see a case where anyone has the presence of mind (or the balls) to answer yes, they would mind (largely because of what would happen thereafter, i.e., arrested for resisiting).

Is all of this legal? Yup. Good ol' California's pretentious version of Stop and Frisk, in action as we speak. They call it a "consensual encounter" where the judiciary turns its hypocritical back on the common sense fact that when a cop walks up to someone and starts talking to them, very few folks are going to have the presence of mind to just keep walking.

Tip: if you are confronted by a cop who wants to know "how ya doin'?", look the sucker in the eye and say: "Officer, before I tell you how I'm doin', let me ask you a question. Am I being detained?" If he says no, then say: "Well, in that case, I'll just be on my way. And you have a nice evening." If he says yes, you are being detained, then tell him you aren't going to say shit to him unless and until you have a lawyer standing by your side.

Of course, in the interests of reality, you would be much more courteous with the officer than I am indicating in my example here - wouldn't want to be guilty of contempt of cop.

Even better get your attorney on the phone and put them on speaker. I do it during my traffic stops and you should see how fast the police back down.

 

[Trajan]

Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

A judge has ruled that the NYPD's controversial use of the stop-and-frisk tactic violated the rights of thousands of New Yorkers, The New York Times reports. Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision Monday called for a federal monitor to watch over the police department to ensure cops are in compliance with the constitution.


Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

they didn't stop it dopey, learn to read, it might help, and preferably, BEFORE you post.

 

[drivebymedia]

Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

A judge has ruled that the NYPD's controversial use of the stop-and-frisk tactic violated the rights of thousands of New Yorkers, The New York Times reports. Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision Monday called for a federal monitor to watch over the police department to ensure cops are in compliance with the constitution.


Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

they didn't stop it ....

The Courts ruled the New York 'stop and frisk' law is Unconstitutional as practiced by NYPD.

Bloomberg is enraged.

A good identification of how Republican administrations are supporting racial profiling.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

A judge has ruled that the NYPD's controversial use of the stop-and-frisk tactic violated the rights of thousands of New Yorkers, The New York Times reports. Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision Monday called for a federal monitor to watch over the police department to ensure cops are in compliance with the constitution.


Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

they didn't stop it ....

The Courts ruled the New York 'stop and frisk' law is Unconstitutional as practiced by NYPD.

Bloomberg is enraged.

A good identification of how Republican administrations are supporting racial profiling.

Bloomberg's not a Republican.
Dunce.

 

[FA_Q2]

Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

A judge has ruled that the NYPD's controversial use of the stop-and-frisk tactic violated the rights of thousands of New Yorkers, The New York Times reports. Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision Monday called for a federal monitor to watch over the police department to ensure cops are in compliance with the constitution.


Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

they didn't stop it ....

The Courts ruled the New York 'stop and frisk' law is Unconstitutional as practiced by NYPD.

Bloomberg is enraged.

A good identification of how Republican administrations are supporting racial profiling.

LOL. A democrat is enraged about the court ordering changes in the stop and frisk policies of the NYPD (the court did not stop the practice) and somehow that is indicative of REPUBLICANS supporting racial profiling.

The hackery is strong in this one.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeahyeah
Why is it every narco-libtard brain dead internet expert when challenged on a view immediately resorts to calling people "statists"? I guess if your belief system isn't terribly well thought out then throwing out cliches and memes ("a document that outlines restriction on government"--absolute bullshit. You've never read it obviously) is a good cover.

When you support increasing the power of the state to the point of overriding the 4th amendment, what should I call you?

An authoritarian.

That is basically what I did and he seems to have issue with that.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's a moot point. The SCOTUS opined on the Terry case in 1968. Stop and frisk is illegal without reasonable suspicion. Well, except in airports where all you have to be is a granny with a joint replacement to get stopped and frisked.

California imposes a condition of probation/parole called a "search waiver condition." What it means, basically, is that anyone on probation or parole no longer has the benefit of the 4th Amendment. They can be searched by police at any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant or probable cause.

As a consequence of this, police will go up to someone on the street, otherwise minding their own business and, after the obligatory, "how ya doin' tonight?", the next question is: "Are you on probation or parole?" If the answer is yes, game over. If the answer is no, the next question is: "Do you have anything illegal on your person?" If the anwer is yes, game over. If the answer is no: "Mind if we search you?" If the answer is no, game over. If the answer is yes - well, I have yet to see a case where anyone has the presence of mind (or the balls) to answer yes, they would mind (largely because of what would happen thereafter, i.e., arrested for resisiting).

Is all of this legal? Yup. Good ol' California's pretentious version of Stop and Frisk, in action as we speak. They call it a "consensual encounter" where the judiciary turns its hypocritical back on the common sense fact that when a cop walks up to someone and starts talking to them, very few folks are going to have the presence of mind to just keep walking.

Tip: if you are confronted by a cop who wants to know "how ya doin'?", look the sucker in the eye and say: "Officer, before I tell you how I'm doin', let me ask you a question. Am I being detained?" If he says no, then say: "Well, in that case, I'll just be on my way. And you have a nice evening." If he says yes, you are being detained, then tell him you aren't going to say shit to him unless and until you have a lawyer standing by your side.

Of course, in the interests of reality, you would be much more courteous with the officer than I am indicating in my example here - wouldn't want to be guilty of contempt of cop.

I have. My father was caught with enough cocaine on him to be charged with distribution, a pretty serious sentence if convicted. He was able to get the charges thrown out on an illegal search performed by the cop.

It happens all the time when you get a competent lawyer and have a basic understanding of your rights. I, honestly, don’t feel too sorry for those idiots that answer ‘yes’ to the cops. If you don’t have a basic understanding of your rights then that is what happens. The practices that police employ though are downright wrong and should be eliminated. In this nation, we give FAR too much leeway to law enforcement in how they treat normal citizens who have not even been charged with a crime let alone convicted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is not nonsense by any stretch of the imagination but rather accepted fact. The ends DOES NOT justify the means or all sorts of horrific instances become justified. It was one of the primary justifications in eugenics. If the ends is all that matters then there should be no reason why I don’t kill off anyone that is ‘undesirable.’

Reductio ad absurdum. We justify the means by the end every single day in countless small situations. When we get to larger issues we can debate whether the means really justify the end or not. Whatever it is, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

No its not. It’s a document that outlines the restriction on government in order to secure our natural born rights. Rights that you are willing to sacrifice to feel safe.

You are a liberal in conservative shoes. There is no other way to say it. That is exactly what they want to do also. I guess the NSA spying program and the drone strike programs are fine with you; they also keep you safe.

Sorry, I will not resign to a statist mindset simply because I like the state controlled police.

By the way, it’s not a reducto ad absurdum. I have not taken your argument to any extreme. I have revealed that your ‘logic’ justifies ANYTHING. Period. You can’t refute that so you have falsely claimed a fallacy. Oh, it also fits pretty well with Argument from fallacy as well.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Invalidating a Terry Stop policy that uses racial profiling as a criterion is consistent with the liberal position on the issue, where democrats and liberals are opposed to racial profiling.

Now, you can make the argument that the poster you were responding to is not a conservative because he supports the racial profiling component of the Terry Stop policy, but he’s clearly no ‘liberal,’ either.

Liberals have been at the forefront for decades in opposition to measures that sacrifice liberty for the illusion of ‘security.’

 

[Politico]

If the police cannot stop anyone, then everyone should be armed at all times as it their ONLY means of protection.

Is it just me or does it seem like some people are really frightened all the time?

Well let me see. The court didn't end anything. Yet ths thread has continued to drone on so it's clear no one actually read the ruling. I would say we are dealing with stupid more than fear.

 

[FA_Q2]

Reductio ad absurdum. We justify the means by the end every single day in countless small situations. When we get to larger issues we can debate whether the means really justify the end or not. Whatever it is, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

No its not. It’s a document that outlines the restriction on government in order to secure our natural born rights. Rights that you are willing to sacrifice to feel safe.

You are a liberal in conservative shoes. There is no other way to say it. That is exactly what they want to do also. I guess the NSA spying program and the drone strike programs are fine with you; they also keep you safe.

Sorry, I will not resign to a statist mindset simply because I like the state controlled police.

By the way, it’s not a reducto ad absurdum. I have not taken your argument to any extreme. I have revealed that your ‘logic’ justifies ANYTHING. Period. You can’t refute that so you have falsely claimed a fallacy. Oh, it also fits pretty well with Argument from fallacy as well.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Invalidating a Terry Stop policy that uses racial profiling as a criterion is consistent with the liberal position on the issue, where democrats and liberals are opposed to racial profiling.

Now, you can make the argument that the poster you were responding to is not a conservative because he supports the racial profiling component of the Terry Stop policy, but he’s clearly no ‘liberal,’ either.

Liberals have been at the forefront for decades in opposition to measures that sacrifice liberty for the illusion of ‘security.’

You mean like the ‘liberals’ that are attempting to overturn the courts interference in this particular case?

Perhaps I should have said left then. Either way, the logic that is being used here, namely screw the constitution in favor of the ends justifies the means, is exactly how the left operates. You will disagree of course but it is proven over and over again as the left continually tries to regulate every human action that it can.