"Stop and Frisk"

[Christ_Patriot]

We can only wonder how many crimes have really been avoided or criminals arrested by this law in New York, as this information is carefully crafted by Mayor Bloomberg's office, but one thing we can be sure: It is indirectly in violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as it seems to be a sly way of checking for firearms, too.

 

[BreezeWood]

there might be set up a civilian means separate from law enforcement that could intervene when suspicious behavior is detected ... however implausible that may be to accomplish.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I hope the murder rate doesn't double

Gangs need to be controlled and cracked down on hard.

 

[Vox]

Stop and Frisk is a natural extension of crazy gun laws of the NYC.

Too bad ibtards do not understand it.

I, personally, do not like the program because it IS unfair and it does cause the inevitable antagonization of the minority youth towards the law enforcement and the rest of the society.

They do not stop and frisk in the cities and states with gun rights.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Stop and Frisk is (to be candid) somewhat questionable.

But it is absolutely NOT as "cut and dried" unConstitutional as its opponents pretend it is.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Google Scholar <-- link to the decision

 

[Christ_Patriot]

Stopping someone to question them is one thing, it's the frisking part that is a violation of a person's basic rights. Laws like that start in California and New York and then work they way into the Heartland of America. That's what makes them dangerous.

Let us pray that the true Homeland of America will not have this happen to us who have a right to carry a firearm.

 

[Londoner]

We can only wonder how many crimes have really been avoided or criminals arrested by this law in New York, as this information is carefully crafted by Mayor Bloomberg's office, but one thing we can be sure: It is indirectly in violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as it seems to be a sly way of checking for firearms, too.

In the 70s America's great cities were crumbling, especially New York City which was suffering from massive crime and ghettoization.

Ronald Reagan promised to "get tough on crime" and to clean up our great cities. His war on drugs turned out to be one of the principal expressions of this promise.

The easiest way to put more criminals in jail is to get rid of all of the pesky civil rights that sly lawyers use to "work the system".

Another key component of "getting tough on crime" and the "war on drugs" was to boost both federal and state surveillance over the population. Again, the easiest way to put criminals in jail is to have more unobstructed access to the population. This is why government has always sought to weaken the warrant procedure so that the prosecutorial arm of the state doesn't have to have as much evidence in place before it moves against a citizen.

The Bush Patriot Act is the clearest expression of government's desire to put citizens in jail without needing traditional oversight protocols, which protects free people, but also make it harder for the state to take action against threats.

Stop and Frisk, which was tried in Arizona, is the next step on the road to giving Government total power to detain and jail the citizenry. At some point we are going to end up with a government which is so powerful that, like in the old Soviet Union, it can detain whoever it wants, and put whoever it wants in jail.

When you hear the logic and the goals of the Stop and Frisk policy, it sounds fine. In fact, I quite like it. However, here is what Republicans never consider. Sometimes when you give the state expanded power to intervene in the lives of the citizenry, that power gets abused. This is why Libertarians never want to give the state more power. Because they understand the laws of unintended consequences.

For example. If Bush gives government expanded powers to listen to everybody's phone calls, what if the next administration uses that power to go after gun owners?

This is precisely why everybody worried when Ronald Reagan gave big government massive new powers under the war on drugs. Sometimes giving government more power is the greatest evil if all. Republicans have never understood this. That's why they never questioned Reagan's war on drugs or his massive increase in Government's concentrated law enforcement powers.

In the old Soviet Union they could stop anybody on the streets, and they could put anybody in jail. They justified it by saying they were protecting people.

 

[Vox]

In the old Soviet Union they could stop anybody on the streets, and they could put anybody in jail. They justified it by saying they were protecting people.

which is the goal of the left. and USSR was a dream of the left come true.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How do we stop our cities from turning into war zones?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Stopping someone to question them is one thing, it's the frisking part that is a violation of a person's basic rights. Laws like that start in California and New York and then work they way into the Heartland of America. That's what makes them dangerous.

Let us pray that the true Homeland of America will not have this happen to us who have a right to carry a firearm.

Actually, the "touchstone" of 4th Amendment analysis is "reasonableness."

If it is reasonable to find some basis to suspect that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit some crime, then questioning him is perfectly proper.

When it is reasonable to stop a citizen (a brief detention), to question him, then it is often just plain good common fucking sense to frisk him for the safety of the cop doing the questioning.

The problem identified most with "stop and frisk" is that it is a less than secret back-door version of racial profiling. A man is not more suspicious just because he is black or Hispanic. So when that is the actual "basis" for a cop's alleged "suspicion," then "stop and frisk" is being misused.

However, if/where the suspicion actually is reasonable (honestly based and able to be articulated), then it is the brief detention that initiates the Constitutional concern. An associated pat down frisk is almost insignificant at that point.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

To answer the question of whether any given "stop and frisk" is validly based, one can simply outlaw all stop and frisks OR one can seek alternative ways of testing to see if the cops' stories about the basis for the stop and frisk are honest and true.

For example, if all cops were issued those Google glasses, then everything they did could be verified later on.

But guess what? Folks object to the fact that we have so much surveillance going on. So that proposed remedy would probably just lead to more complaints.

 

[Antares]

This began in earnest when Clinton signed an Executive Order allowing it.


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.

https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

 

[Duped]

You should not be stopped without probable cause. We need to be tough on predators when we legally catch them. Violent, non mitigated crimes should be dealt with harshly. Bloomberg is a tyrant who feels that he is above his dominions!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You should not be stopped without probable cause. We need to be tough on predators when we legally catch them. Violent, non mitigated crimes should be dealt with harshly. Bloomberg is a tyrant who feels that he is above his dominions!

Read Terry: Google Scholar

Read DeBour: Google Scholar

Then, get back to us, someday.

 

[Duped]

To answer the question of whether any given "stop and frisk" is validly based, one can simply outlaw all stop and frisks OR one can seek alternative ways of testing to see if the cops' stories about the basis for the stop and frisk are honest and true.

For example, if all cops were issued those Google glasses, then everything they did could be verified later on.

But guess what? Folks object to the fact that we have so much surveillance going on. So that proposed remedy would probably just lead to more complaints.

Cops want everyone to be on camera but them! If you believe in stop, and frisk, then young black males should be targeted for the very reason that you believe!

 

[Zona]

We can only wonder how many crimes have really been avoided or criminals arrested by this law in New York, as this information is carefully crafted by Mayor Bloomberg's office, but one thing we can be sure: It is indirectly in violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as it seems to be a sly way of checking for firearms, too.

Its not a violation if it doesn't affect white people. Simply read the responses you are going to get here.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

To answer the question of whether any given "stop and frisk" is validly based, one can simply outlaw all stop and frisks OR one can seek alternative ways of testing to see if the cops' stories about the basis for the stop and frisk are honest and true.

For example, if all cops were issued those Google glasses, then everything they did could be verified later on.

But guess what? Folks object to the fact that we have so much surveillance going on. So that proposed remedy would probably just lead to more complaints.

Cops want everyone to be on camera but them! If you believe in stop, and frisk, then young black males should be targeted for the very reason that you believe!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you think you just posted something insightful -- or even comprehensible.

You'd be wrong.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We can only wonder how many crimes have really been avoided or criminals arrested by this law in New York, as this information is carefully crafted by Mayor Bloomberg's office, but one thing we can be sure: It is indirectly in violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as it seems to be a sly way of checking for firearms, too.

Its not a violation if it doesn't affect white people. Simply read the responses you are going to get here.

But it is ok if 70% of all crime is done by blacks? So it is good for the black community if the black shop owner is robbed and his son is shot.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

ZonaBodey is not just an imbecile and a liar, but it is also patently racist.

Arguing with ZonaBodey is pointless since that useless rancid twat skank bitch will forever refuse to admit the truth.