"Stop and frisk" fascism vs. 2nd Amendment

[PurpleOwl]

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.

yeah as oppose to republicans who never bring up race? LMAO! your are insane, hows your wall btw

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

They have to have probable cause to stop & frisk.

Bullshit! Again, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. In Terry v. Ohio SCOTUS found that a LEO could detain a person and frisk their outer garments ONLY IF they had SUSPICION and REASONABLE CAUSE that a person was carrying a weapon. "Terry Stops" did not have to rise to the level of probable cause required by Amendment IV but had to exceed UNREASONABLE searches and seizures which were violative of Amendment IV! Here's the decision so you can edify your dumb ass!
Terry v. Ohio

In Aug 2013, Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin found Terry Stops, as conducted by the NYPD WERE violative of Amendment IV because of widespread racial profiling which was OUTSIDE of the requirement for "reasonable suspicion/cause"! You can read her decision here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/12/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-decision.html

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

Actually, it's the Clintons who want to do that. It was the Clinton crime bill that led to the mass incarcerations of thousands of young black men, that gave them life sentences with the three strike law, and it was Hillary who characterized young black men as superpredators who must be brought to heel - you bring a dog to heel, not a human being. So if you are looking for people who don't care about the lives of black and Hispanic people, you're looking for Hillary and Bill.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

Actually, it's the Clintons who want to do that. It was the Clinton crime bill that led to the mass incarcerations of thousands of young black men, that gave them life sentences with the three strike law, and it was Hillary who characterized young black men as superpredators who must be brought to heel - you bring a dog to heel, not a human being. So if you are looking for people who don't care about the lives of black and Hispanic people, you're looking for Hillary and Bill.

oh give me a break

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They have to have probable cause to stop & frisk.

Bullshit! Again, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. In Terry v. Ohio SCOTUS found that a LEO could detain a person and frisk their outer garments ONLY IF they had SUSPICION and REASONABLE CAUSE that a person was carrying a weapon. "Terry Stops" did not have to rise to the level of probable cause required by Amendment IV but had to exceed UNREASONABLE searches and seizures which were violative of Amendment IV! Here's the decision so you can edify your dumb ass!
Terry v. Ohio

In Aug 2013, Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin found Terry Stops, as conducted by the NYPD WERE violative of Amendment IV because of widespread racial profiling which was OUTSIDE of the requirement for "reasonable suspicion/cause"! You can read her decision here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/12/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-decision.html

Suspicion & reasonable cause. Semantics that mean the same fucking thing with the same end result.

Why are you morons playing these stupid word games?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

yeah as oppose to republicans who never bring up race? LMAO! your are insane, hows your wall btw

You are correct that Republicans don't bring up race, and are you referring to the wall Senator Clinton voted for twice?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

Actually, it's the Clintons who want to do that. It was the Clinton crime bill that led to the mass incarcerations of thousands of young black men, that gave them life sentences with the three strike law, and it was Hillary who characterized young black men as superpredators who must be brought to heel - you bring a dog to heel, not a human being. So if you are looking for people who don't care about the lives of black and Hispanic people, you're looking for Hillary and Bill.

oh give me a break

Well, if you are a black man, that's a plea you want to make to Hillary because she has really screwed you over the years.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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.

yeah as oppose to republicans who never bring up race? LMAO! your are insane, hows your wall btw

You are correct that Republicans don't bring up race, and are you referring to the wall Senator Clinton voted for twice?

thats all republicans talk about is race, its a white supremacist hate group

 

[2aguy]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

No....open carry does not mean that ......Constitutional Carry means that twit.....

And yes...you should be able to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen without any Poll Tax or Literacy test to do it.....if you are a felon, the cops will know because when they stop you for speeding, or interact with you and run your name and birthday, they will know if you can legally carry a gun......

Licensing, regitering guns...do nothing to change that fact...

 

[PurpleOwl]

They have to have probable cause to stop & frisk.

Bullshit! Again, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. In Terry v. Ohio SCOTUS found that a LEO could detain a person and frisk their outer garments ONLY IF they had SUSPICION and REASONABLE CAUSE that a person was carrying a weapon. "Terry Stops" did not have to rise to the level of probable cause required by Amendment IV but had to exceed UNREASONABLE searches and seizures which were violative of Amendment IV! Here's the decision so you can edify your dumb ass!
Terry v. Ohio

In Aug 2013, Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin found Terry Stops, as conducted by the NYPD WERE violative of Amendment IV because of widespread racial profiling which was OUTSIDE of the requirement for "reasonable suspicion/cause"! You can read her decision here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/12/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-decision.html

Suspicion & reasonable cause. Semantics that mean the same fucking thing with the same end result.

Why are you morons playing these stupid word games?

is the judge a stupid moron too because she disagrees with you as well.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

yeah as oppose to republicans who never bring up race? LMAO! your are insane, hows your wall btw

You are correct that Republicans don't bring up race, and are you referring to the wall Senator Clinton voted for twice?

thats all republicans talk about is race, its a white supremacist hate group

It's the Democrats who are talking about it all the time.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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.

yeah as oppose to republicans who never bring up race? LMAO! your are insane, hows your wall btw

You are correct that Republicans don't bring up race, and are you referring to the wall Senator Clinton voted for twice?

thats all republicans talk about is race, its a white supremacist hate group

It's the Democrats who are talking about it all the time.

yeah how to stop your racist party from achieving its many racist goals maybe

 

[2aguy]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

Nope......gang members who are familiar to police...sure.......in Chicago there are 1,333 known gang members and they are the ones doing the shooting.......it would be nice if the police could stop them before they commit murder...wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

You should sober up once, just to see what it's like.

Stop and frisk has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

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

yeah as oppose to republicans who never bring up race? LMAO! your are insane, hows your wall btw

You are correct that Republicans don't bring up race, and are you referring to the wall Senator Clinton voted for twice?

thats all republicans talk about is race, its a white supremacist hate group

It's the Democrats who are talking about it all the time.

yeah how to stop your racist party from achieving its many racist goals maybe

The only racist party is the democrat party...from owning slaves, to jim crow to the destruction of black communities today.....all aspects of the racism of the democrats...

 

[BULLDOG]

They have to have probable cause to stop & frisk.

Bullshit! Again, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. In Terry v. Ohio SCOTUS found that a LEO could detain a person and frisk their outer garments ONLY IF they had SUSPICION and REASONABLE CAUSE that a person was carrying a weapon. "Terry Stops" did not have to rise to the level of probable cause required by Amendment IV but had to exceed UNREASONABLE searches and seizures which were violative of Amendment IV! Here's the decision so you can edify your dumb ass!
Terry v. Ohio

In Aug 2013, Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin found Terry Stops, as conducted by the NYPD WERE violative of Amendment IV because of widespread racial profiling which was OUTSIDE of the requirement for "reasonable suspicion/cause"! You can read her decision here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/12/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-decision.html

Suspicion & reasonable cause. Semantics that mean the same fucking thing with the same end result.

Why are you morons playing these stupid word games?

is the judge a stupid moron too because she disagrees with you as well.

Another mistake that cops need more training to correct. They are not the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

There's nothing wrong with stop and frisk, if they have nice buttocks, I'd stop and frisk them

All Leftist men want Right-Wing Totalitarian blonde girls stopping and frisking them

Stop and Frisk is inherently unconstitutional - a direct violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[PurpleOwl]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop and frisk is an element of proactive policing, trying to prevent violent crimes rather than just clean up the bodies afterwards. Since black people and Hispanics are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, they are also the greatest beneficiaries of stop and frisk, so the question is, is it worse for a young black man to be unfairly stopped by police or to be murdered because some one else was not stopped by police? Hillary, and you apparently, think he'd be better off dead.

so you support police racially profiling and illegally searching blacks and hispanics, "for their own good"

Nope......gang members who are familiar to police...sure.......in Chicago there are 1,333 known gang members and they are the ones doing the shooting.......it would be nice if the police could stop them before they commit murder...wouldn't that be nice?

maybe they should just arrest all black people so you can feel safe? after all their not real americans anyway right?

 

[2aguy]

Maybe the reason republicans think racism doesn't exist is because fox news and AM hate radio never covers it?

We cover it all the time......we keep pointing out all the racism in the democrat party, but as long as they are giving out free stuff...you twits don't care....

 

[2aguy]

So what's it going to be republicans, or are you all hypocrites? Or is the 2nd amendment just for whites?.... which confirms your bigotry.

Stop & frisk does not violate a lawful citizen from possessing a firearm lol
All the thugs wanna LEGALLY carry a weapon? Fill out the proper paperwork like everyone else.
Or are you suggesting blacks are too stupid to do that? Perhaps it is YOU who is the racist no? Either that or you're just really fucking stupid

So you are against open carry? Open carry means exactly that. You can openly carry a pistol with no paperwork, identification, or any paperwork whatsoever.

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

cough cough BS cough

what part of that is wrong?

Spoken like a true democrat and left winger.....