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.
It doesn't. The criteria for stopping and frisking will increase as they look harder and harder for crimes in search of a victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
More like crimes in search of fines, fees, court costs and more reasons to hire more police and "justice system" bureacrats.
Because the quote works here, and it makes liberals angry to see her name....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn Rand
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Stop & frisk, along with every other "guilty until proven innocent" law is anathema to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the concept of freedom.
I disagree with the Stop and Frisk part. Crime was dropping before Stop and Frisk was implemented. And when it was being used, most of those who were being stopped and frisked were not found to be doing anything wrong. A heavier police presence helps. Being tough on crime got alot of criminals off the streets. Stop and Frisk wasn't as effective as you claim. If it did, S&F would have turned up alot more criminals than it did. All it really did was violate alot of people's 4th Amendment rights. It operates on less than probable cause.
The Supreme Court has also equated a traffic stop as a Terry stop because no PC is directly needed for the seizure.
The lack of reaction to this is even more disturbing though. We love mocking the communist bloc "can I see your papers pleaze", yet right here in the US, stop and frisk. This should have been challenged and done away with right when it was started.
Many people love mocking the Communist bloc when it's them at risk. When it's "those people " at risk, and in particular, a population that is looked down on/feared, then it's a different story. As long as it's "those people " ,many do not care, and at worst, see it as "those people need to be kept under a police state that only targets them ".
Because the quote works here, and it makes liberals angry to see her name....
Stop & frisk, along with every other "guilty until proven innocent" law is anathema to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the concept of freedom.
Guilty until proven innocent is something you use when there is martial law.
This is the sad thing. Many people operate under "guilty until proven innocent ". Many who support it know whose rights are being violated, and don't care.
We both know it's an anathema. So do many other people. Some just don't care.
This tells me their is a strong thread of racism in this county. There is no way the average white person would be okay with daily police stops. None. Zero.
Given Michael Bloomberg's comments regarding who should be stopped and frisked, and Trump having said he supports Stop & Frisk (and called for it to be expanded nationwide), what do you think? Should it be expanded throughout the USA?
By the way, I will chime in, and I'm not holding back on what I say.
The biggest problem with Stop & Frisk was it was too generally applied to regular folks, not suspected gang bangers/criminals.
Ultimately the way it was applied was unconstitutional as it indiscriminately violated everyone's rights.
The comments by Bloomberg just go to show he thinks he knows better than everyone else how people should live their lives, and/or be treated by the government.
Needless to say he has it backwards, as the citizens are the masters of our land, not the government officials who would be dictators if given the chance.
The Supreme Court has also equated a traffic stop as a Terry stop because no PC is directly needed for the seizure.
S&F doesn't even operate under reasonable suspicion. Most of the time, it operates under an officer having a hunch or using some other dumb reason to pull someone over and searching them. Pulling someone over because of a busted tail light or expired tags, okay. Pulling someone over because you "look like you could be a criminal" or some other reason that adds up to little more than a hunch, that is stupid and it violates important civil liberties.
S&F doesn't even operate under reasonable suspicion. Most of the time, it operates under an officer having a hunch or using some other dumb reason to pull someone over and searching them. Pulling someone over because of a busted tail light or expired tags, okay. Pulling someone over because you "look like you could be a criminal" or some other reason that adds up to little more than a hunch, that is stupid and it violates important civil liberties.
That I totally agree with. If the cop is a bad apple he can do what he wants and claim anything the oposite of the law.
Currently the numbers are 87 in favor of the Constitution and defending the rights of the individuals and 48 in support of King George. Shameful, embarrassing numbers
Look at the so called conservatives it's ~50/50. From the word conserve, use less of. Can I claim political appropriation?
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.
