Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:00 PM
 
28,667 posts, read 18,784,602 times
Reputation: 30949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I would like to hear more about how it might blow up in his face. I still have my theories, but so far, I am looking at several scenarios. While there are many who aren't for the S&F policy, there are just enough who will remain silent or who tolerate such madness.
What would "national policy" mean? The Supreme Court has essentially set the boundaries of all local policies--is he proposing to override the Supreme Court?


Localities have reasons and areas where they want to practice stop and frisk. Who would be doing the stop and frisk by "national policy?" Is Trump proposing to override their jurisdictional prerogatives and direct local police agencies of when and were to stop and frisk?


Or is the President planning to put federal police forces everywhere in the nation to implement a national stop and frisk policy?


And if he did that, would the basis for stopping and frisking by federal police be federal law or state law? The feds already expect local police to enforce federal law--are they going to return the favor?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:03 PM
 
Location: London
12,275 posts, read 7,138,783 times
Reputation: 13661
If this is true, and not pieced together out of context, then I guess I'd better go back to dying my hair blonde again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:04 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I would like to hear more about how it might blow up in his face. I still have my theories, but so far, I am looking at several scenarios. While there are many who aren't for the S&F policy, there are just enough who will remain silent or who tolerate such madness.
When it happened in NYC few complained. As I recall it was pretty popular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,347,290 times
Reputation: 8828
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
When it happened in NYC few complained. As I recall it was pretty popular.
Among young Black men and Hispanics? Not a chance. Actually young Black men got stopped more than once each.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:35 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Among young Black men and Hispanics? Not a chance. Actually young Black men got stopped more than once each.
It wasn't popular with those who got stopped. It was for the rest.

Poll: Stop-frisk supported, but with revisions | Newsday
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:40 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,909,384 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I would like to hear more about how it might blow up in his face. I still have my theories, but so far, I am looking at several scenarios. While there are many who aren't for the S&F policy, there are just enough who will remain silent or who tolerate such madness.
There's no way a nationwide S&F policy will be allowed to happen (mainly because I think Trump isn't that stupid, nor would anyone on his team let it happen)...

But if it did happen, I believe it would cause mass hysteria. We would probably have literal riots over it. Trump would get sued by dozens (perhaps hundreds) of people and groups. The Supreme court would have to get involved, and it would likely rule the law unconstitutional.

But, like I said, I don't think even Trump is this stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:41 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,909,384 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It wasn't popular with those who got stopped. It was for the rest.

Poll: Stop-frisk supported, but with revisions | Newsday
Slavery wasn't popular with the slaves, either. Slave owners sure loved it, though!

There is a thing called the tyranny of the majority, and this is a perfect example of it. Just because the majority favor some unconstitutional thing, that doesn't somehow make that thing all of a sudden constitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,347,290 times
Reputation: 8828
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It wasn't popular with those who got stopped. It was for the rest.

Poll: Stop-frisk supported, but with revisions | Newsday
So we agree it was popular among those non impacted New Yorkers? But pretty well hated by those who were impacted?

Amazing Trump does badly in NYC. Sounds like his kind of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 02:02 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
Slavery wasn't popular with the slaves, either. Slave owners sure loved it, though!

There is a thing called the tyranny of the majority, and this is a perfect example of it. Just because the majority favor some unconstitutional thing, that doesn't somehow make that thing all of a sudden constitutional.
The argument you are making is people would riot. I am showing that people did not riot but actually supported it where it was used.

So what makes you think people would riot when they did not when it was implemented?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2017, 02:05 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,909,384 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The argument you are making is people would riot. I am showing that people did not riot but actually supported it where it was used.

So what makes you think people would riot when they did not when it was implemented?
If it were implemented nationwide, it would cause hysteria. And because of everything Trump has tried to do (see: Muslim ban (I mean "ban")), this would cause protests, and likely riots.

And it would be a MUCH bigger deal because it would affect so many US citizens (not just people trying to get into the country or people with valid green cards/visas).

Last edited by HockeyMac18; 02-17-2017 at 02:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:30 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top