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.
Mayor Bloomberg used STOP AND FRISK, I didn't see New Yorkers where N.Y. is a DEMOCRAT STATE call him a racist and go off while he was mayor.....He won re-elections in landslides.
But Trump mentions the same thing because he lives in New York and all of the sudden he is a fascist racist and is clueless.
Bloomberg is a liberal that endorsed Obama and Hillary....but nobody attacked him when he implemented STOP and FRISK in NEW YORK CITY.......Trump mentions it as an option to combat cities with high crime rates and all hell breaks loose.
Bloomberg is not running for president. Sorry you are getting the memo just now.
who said he is????? .............what is HILLARY answer, she will talk to the White people to solve the problem.....
No one has an answer, not even your orange idol. The program was a failure and it was unconstitutional.
People like you will do anything to support your orange clown including using the Constitution as toilet paper. Unbelievable what bipartisan bs, racial fear-mongering and brainwashing can do.
"That looks like a bid bad dude let's stop and frisk"
No one has an answer, not even your orange idol. The program was a failure and it was unconstitutional.
People like you will do anything to support your orange clown including using the Constitution as toilet paper. Unbelievable what bipartisan bs, racial fear-mongering and brainwashing can do.
"That looks like a bid bad dude let's stop and frisk"
because 1 liberal judge say so and she got overrule on appeal? LMAO!
nobody has an answer????? LMAO!!! Yeah Hillary has the best proposals, she will talk to the White cops to get to the bottom of this...funny $hi@t.
Funny how democrats like you now care about the constitution when Obama didn't give a $hiat about it with his executive orders that the courts slapped him.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 09-23-2016 at 12:56 AM..
4 million stopped and frisked in NY
80% Black or Latino.
only 6% of the 4 million arrested and 6% summoned.
That means that 88% were doing nothing wrong.
My feeling is that law abiding people should be glad to cooperate with law enforcement in order to promote public safety. To argue that just because someone is black, they should be exempt, so their feelings aren't hurt, is ridiculous.
In NYC, the crime was out of control. Something had to be done. Stop and frisk was used, and it worked. There are some communities which need drastic action, but most don't. A community should use whatever method works for it.
I live in a safe suburb of Savannah. They are on their 46th murder this year. A man walking with his wife in his neighborhood was shot by a black thug during a robbery yesterday. In Savannah it is the black thugs who are killing each other, and also innocent bystanders. There is nothing gained by pretending otherwise.
"The right of people to be secure in their persons and homes...." can be interpreted in more than one way.
because 1 liberal judge say so and she got overrule on appeal? LMAO!
nobody has an answer????? LMAO!!! Yeah Hillary has the best proposals, she will talk to the White cops to get to the bottom of this...funny $hi@t.
Funny how democrats like you now care about the constitution when Obama didn't give a $hiat about it with his executive orders that the courts slapped him.
She didn't get overruled. The appeal was dismissed.
Quote:
Accordingly, Judge Torres’s July 30, 2014 decision is
AFFIRMED as being within her discretion, the police unions’
motions to intervene in the appeals are DENIED, the City’s motion
for voluntary dismissal of the appeals with prejudice is GRANTED,
and the causes are REMANDED for such further proceedings before
Judge Torres as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The
mandate shall issue seven days from the date of the filing of this
opinion.
*
My feeling is that law abiding people should be glad to cooperate with law enforcement in order to promote public safety. To argue that just because someone is black, they should be exempt, so their feelings aren't hurt, is ridiculous.
In NYC, the crime was out of control. Something had to be done. Stop and frisk was used, and it worked. There are some communities which need drastic action, but most don't. A community should use whatever method works for it.
I live in a safe suburb of Savannah. They are on their 46th murder this year. A man walking with his wife in his neighborhood was shot by a black thug during a robbery yesterday. In Savannah it is the black thugs who are killing each other, and also innocent bystanders. There is nothing gained by pretending otherwise.
"The right of people to be secure in their persons and homes...." can be interpreted in more than one way.
So you think that peoples constitutional rights should go out the window so that you can feel safe?
How about the second amendment? Should we ban all guns because some people commit crimes with them?
How about the first amendment because some people use religions and free speech to incite violence?
Any other rights we should ditch to make you feel safe?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
So you think that peoples constitutional rights should go out the window so that you can feel safe?
How about the second amendment? Should we ban all guns because some people commit crimes with them?
How about the first amendment because some people use religions and free speech to incite violence?
Any other rights we should ditch to make you feel safe?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
No, I do not think people's constitutional rights should go out the window, I'm an advocate for free speech, and I am not in favor of gun control. I'm also a huge fan of Ben Franklin, despite his shortcomings.
But as I already said, the 4th amendment can be interpreted different ways. Why is my right to feel safe in my city, neighborhood and home, less important than someone else's? I understand that if I were a young black man, instead of an old white woman, I could feel persecuted. I also think many cops are in need of charm school, but I wouldnt want to do their jobs with the cards all stacked on the side of the lawless.
My feeling is that law abiding people should be glad to cooperate with law enforcement in order to promote public safety. To argue that just because someone is black, they should be exempt, so their feelings aren't hurt, is ridiculous.
They should cooperate......when it's a lawful request.
Quote:
In NYC, the crime was out of control. Something had to be done. Stop and frisk was used, and it worked. There are some communities which need drastic action, but most don't. A community should use whatever method works for it.
Wow. What a sad commentary.
Quote:
I live in a safe suburb of Savannah. They are on their 46th murder this year. A man walking with his wife in his neighborhood was shot by a black thug during a robbery yesterday. In Savannah it is the black thugs who are killing each other, and also innocent bystanders. There is nothing gained by pretending otherwise.
"The right of people to be secure in their persons and homes...." can be interpreted in more than one way.
You can protect your home. The courts have sided with this many times over.
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.
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.
