Justice Sotomayor: SCOTUS has given the police Carte Blanche to harrass....

[Contumacious]

........blacks and other minorities


Sotomayor in fiery dissent: Illegal stops 'corrode all our civil liberties'

"It is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny," she wrote. "For generations, black and brown parents have given their children 'the talk' -- instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger -- all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.
"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time," she added. "It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."


.

Given your sig line, I'll assume you think she's right. (She is)

Yes, indeed.


In CHAMBERS v. BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY., 28 S. Ct. 34, 207 U.S. 142, 148 (U.S. 11/18/1907) The US Supreme Court ruled that


"The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force.In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship,......."


Since then the SCOTUS has immunized themselves, judges, prosecutors and the police

Those affected by police brutality who seek a redress of grievances can no longer resort to the courts....their only viable alternative is now VIOLENCE.


For shame.

 

[Wolfpack1]

I have to say, some of my black friends do talk about how they're often harassed by the Police. So i think there's some truth to it. Some of the stops are very questionable.

 

[Contumacious]

I have to say, some of my black friends do talk about how they're often harassed by the Police. So i think there's some truth to it. Some of the stops are very questionable.

Dallas Police Massacre and its Aftermath

During Obama’s time in power, he has militarized police forces across our nation to combat readiness, killing far more unarmed citizens each year than any other industrialized nation. In the first 24 days last year, more Americans were killed by police than in the last 24 years in England and Wales. In March last year alone, US cops killed more Americans than UK police killed during the entire 20thcentury. More US citizens have been murdered since 9/11 by killer cops than US soldiers died fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are 58 times more likelyto lose our life at the hands of those sworn to “protect and serve” us than by terrorists that the US government not-so-secretly created, funds, trains, arms, supplies and has regularly deployed as covert mercenary proxy war allies for nearly a half century.

.

 

[Wolfpack1]

I have to say, some of my black friends do talk about how they're often harassed by the Police. So i think there's some truth to it. Some of the stops are very questionable.

Dallas Police Massacre and its Aftermath

During Obama’s time in power, he has militarized police forces across our nation to combat readiness, killing far more unarmed citizens each year than any other industrialized nation. In the first 24 days last year, more Americans were killed by police than in the last 24 years in England and Wales. In March last year alone, US cops killed more Americans than UK police killed during the entire 20thcentury. More US citizens have been murdered since 9/11 by killer cops than US soldiers died fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are 58 times more likelyto lose our life at the hands of those sworn to “protect and serve” us than by terrorists that the US government not-so-secretly created, funds, trains, arms, supplies and has regularly deployed as covert mercenary proxy war allies for nearly a half century.

.

Wow. Shocking stats.

 

[Fiero425]

I have to say, some of my black friends do talk about how they're often harassed by the Police. So i think there's some truth to it. Some of the stops are very questionable.

Dallas Police Massacre and its Aftermath

During Obama’s time in power, he has militarized police forces across our nation to combat readiness, killing far more unarmed citizens each year than any other industrialized nation. In the first 24 days last year, more Americans were killed by police than in the last 24 years in England and Wales. In March last year alone, US cops killed more Americans than UK police killed during the entire 20thcentury. More US citizens have been murdered since 9/11 by killer cops than US soldiers died fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are 58 times more likelyto lose our life at the hands of those sworn to “protect and serve” us than by terrorists that the US government not-so-secretly created, funds, trains, arms, supplies and has regularly deployed as covert mercenary proxy war allies for nearly a half century.

.

Wow. Shocking stats.

Old news going back decades! Until recently with the video cells catching these fools acting out, pulling guys from their cars, and shooting them for blinking too hard is nothing we didn't already know! Some just refused to accept it; esp. after hearing about something they did years ago! Why pull the criminal record of some poor schmo that was gunned down for a busted taillight? Is that supposed to justify what a cop did for all to see?

 

[bendog]

........blacks and other minorities


Sotomayor in fiery dissent: Illegal stops 'corrode all our civil liberties'

"It is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny," she wrote. "For generations, black and brown parents have given their children 'the talk' -- instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger -- all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.
"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time," she added. "It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."



.

She's right, although the guy in this case was white. The question is whether the Founders would ever have envisioned a society where a cop can stop and ask a person for ID who is just standing in a place minding his own biz, and if the person refused to talk with the cop, can be taken downtown to be fingerprinted and have a warrant check performed.

And before even attempting to answer the question (yeah I know that's above you're "thoughtgrade" in the first place) consider that even whether you're ok with that (and I am), what in the name of God does that situation have to do with what happened in Baton Rouge, Balt or Eric Garner?. - not a dman thing.

 

[Contumacious]

........blacks and other minorities


Sotomayor in fiery dissent: Illegal stops 'corrode all our civil liberties'

"It is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny," she wrote. "For generations, black and brown parents have given their children 'the talk' -- instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger -- all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.
"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time," she added. "It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."



.

She's right, although the guy in this case was white. The question is whether the Founders would ever have envisioned a society where a cop can stop and ask a person for ID who is just standing in a place minding his own biz, and if the person refused to talk with the cop, can be taken downtown to be fingerprinted and have a warrant check performed.

And before even attempting to answer the question (yeah I know that's above you're "thoughtgrade" in the first place) consider that even whether you're ok with that (and I am), what in the name of God does that situation have to do with what happened in Baton Rouge, Balt or Eric Garner. - not a dman thing.

I fully understand that you are not familiar with , nor have you ever read, the US Constitution.

SCOTUS was created by the Constitution. Therefore it is not free to ignore the provisos nor to amend the same. If, for some stupid reason, you believe that someone should be harassed WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE then follow the Constitutionally MANDATED amendment process.


The police has gotten used to SCOTUS defending them after the fact. Immunizing them , destroying the Fourth Amendment in order to create a police state to their liking. Those VICTIMIZED by the police can no longer seek a redress of their grievances in the "courts".


For shame.

 

[Contumacious]

Cons don't about our rights other than the 2nd .

Minutes after Edward Strieff walked out of a South Salt Lake City home, an officer stopped him, questioned him, and took his identification to run it through a police database. The officer did not suspect that Strieff had done anything wrong. Strieff just happened to be the first person to leave a house that the officer thought might contain “drug activity.” App. 16–19. As the State of Utah concedes, th


UTAH v. STRIEFF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH No. 14–1373. Argued February 22, 2016—Decided June 20, 2016


.

For the first time, I'm forced to agree with you on this particular constitutional point. The decision in Utah v. Strieff will now throw out not only the "fruits of the poison tree" doctrine, but along with that likely a big chunk of the Exclusionary Rule. All police stops, home visits, etc. may now give a LEO the authority to go fishing and search the person(s) or place(s) of interest for anything without a warrant, probable cause or even reasonable suspicion if this precedent stands. It would even eliminate the minimum legal requirements for a "Terry Stop". That is more than a slippery slope...it's a cliff!

A passage from the decision;

At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop but argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because the existence of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband. [Emphasis Added] ~~https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-1373~~

Now all you Amendment II nuts afraid of the insidious "gun grabbers" need to pay some attention to this. This decision could set the precedent that may allow authorities to search your property and private effects WITHOUT A WARRANT. They don't even need to meet the lowest standard to search for cover; reasonable suspicion. With this decision by those five Conservative Justices deciding against precedents more than 100 years old, an entire body of law may be kicked to the curb and potentially Amendment IV with it! Be careful what you wish for!

Their main concern is not to act an a BULWARK OF LIBERTY , but as an ENABLER of the police state.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Freddie Gray case: Judge acquits Lt. Brian Rice of all charges




.

 

[Contumacious]

The Stamp Act required all colonists to purchase and affix stamps to all legal, financial, political, personal and public documents. It was billed as a revenue-gathering measure, but it truly was used as an excuse to humiliate the colonists by permitting soldiers and agents to enter their homes ostensibly looking for the stamps. They were really looking for evidence of revolutionary ideas and plans against the king.

After Americans won the Revolution and wrote the Constitution, they did so with the determination never to permit the new government here to do to Americans what the pre-Revolutionary British government had done to the colonists. Their chosen instrument of that prevention was the Fourth Amendment."


.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cons don't about our rights other than the 2nd .

From the "I don't give a fuck Obama used the NSA to spy on Conservatives" Party

 

[Contumacious]

Similar to the Stamp Act

Terry Stops are used as a pretext to stop someone . The states arbitrarily post low speed limits knowing full well that they will be violated.


.

 

[OKTexas]

She has no more credibility as an 'impartial' judge.

Why is her Fourth Amendment jurisprudence wrong?

because she is too brown?


/

My B/B/U

Terry v. Ohio
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, and frisk persons who are suspectedof criminal activity without first obtaining their consent, even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search orProbable Cause to make an arrest. Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissibleonly when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity maybe afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous.

Terry v. Ohio

I would say leaving a suspected drug house would meet the requirements for a Terry Stop. Sotomayor is full of it as usual.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Cons don't about our rights other than the 2nd .

Speech codes
Gay bakeries
Force birth control

 

[buckeye45_73]

Similar to the Stamp Act

Terry Stops are used as a pretext to stop someone . The states arbitrarily post low speed limits knowing full well that they will be violated.


.

Yeah...and....I hate speed limits....but the.
Ecocommies love them......all for a .hoax.

 

[Contumacious]

She has no more credibility as an 'impartial' judge.

Why is her Fourth Amendment jurisprudence wrong?

because she is too brown?


/

My B/B/U

Terry v. Ohio
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, and frisk persons who are suspectedof criminal activity without first obtaining their consent, even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search orProbable Cause to make an arrest. Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissibleonly when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity maybe afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous.

Terry v. Ohio

I would say leaving a suspected drug house would meet the requirements for a Terry Stop. Sotomayor is full of it as usual.

In a FREE COUNTRY there are NOT supposed to be "suspected drug houses" . Americans should be free to self medicate as they did prior to 1914,


.The stupid motherfuckers have decimated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in order to authorize the police state,

Drug users should resist violently.

.

 

[OKTexas]

She has no more credibility as an 'impartial' judge.

Why is her Fourth Amendment jurisprudence wrong?

because she is too brown?


/

My B/B/U

Terry v. Ohio
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, and frisk persons who are suspectedof criminal activity without first obtaining their consent, even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search orProbable Cause to make an arrest. Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissibleonly when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity maybe afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous.

Terry v. Ohio

I would say leaving a suspected drug house would meet the requirements for a Terry Stop. Sotomayor is full of it as usual.

In a FREE COUNTRY there are NOT supposed to be "suspected drug houses" . Americans should be free to self medicate as they did prior to 1914,


.The stupid motherfuckers have decimated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in order to authorize the police state,

Drug users should resist violently.

.

Yeah, you run with that.

 

[Contumacious]

Similar to the Stamp Act

Terry Stops are used as a pretext to stop someone . The states arbitrarily post low speed limits knowing full well that they will be violated.


.

Yeah...and....I hate speed limits....but the.
Ecocommies love them......all for a .hoax.

Yo Butthead


According to the US Department of Transportation speed limits must be set according to ENGINEERING STUDIES , specifically, not as a tool for the state to enhance its revenue or circumvent the 4A.


Provide a link to your state's DOT showing that it has complied with this requirement.

I bet it hasn't.


.


.

 

[Contumacious]

She has no more credibility as an 'impartial' judge.

Why is her Fourth Amendment jurisprudence wrong?

because she is too brown?


/

My B/B/U

Terry v. Ohio
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, and frisk persons who are suspectedof criminal activity without first obtaining their consent, even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search orProbable Cause to make an arrest. Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissibleonly when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity maybe afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous.

Terry v. Ohio

I would say leaving a suspected drug house would meet the requirements for a Terry Stop. Sotomayor is full of it as usual.

In a FREE COUNTRY there are NOT supposed to be "suspected drug houses" . Americans should be free to self medicate as they did prior to 1914,


.The stupid motherfuckers have decimated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in order to authorize the police state,

Drug users should resist violently.

.

Yeah, you run with that.

The right to self medicate is as important as the one to bear arms for a lawful purpose.

..