Stop-and-frisk does not require probable cause, but the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion.I do not like stop and frisk. Seems like there should be cause, and stop and frisk can be very hard to justify. Kinda like I smelled pot coming from that car 1/4 mile away.
Stop and Frisk should be opposed on the grounds that it’s a violation of rights against search and seizure. The fact that they focus on “paper crimes against the State” only adds to the justification. This is the sort of thing they did in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Germany under Hitler and it should be resisted by any means necessary and available.Under the stop-and-frisk method, large numbers of people are temporarily detained, questioned and sometimes searched for drugs and weapons. It was used extensively in New York City until it was deemed unconstitutional because of findings that it had an overwhelming impact on minority residents.
Sadly many "conservatives" support it based on results claiming it reduces crime.Stop and Frisk should be opposed on the grounds that it’s a violation of rights against search and seizure. The fact that they focus on “paper crimes against the State” only adds to the justification. This is the sort of thing they did in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Germany under Hitler and it should be resisted by any means necessary and available.
Sadly many "conservatives" support it based on results claiming it reduces crime.
The ends do not justify the means. That is what big government wackos fall back on.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
He was good with it as long as he was doing the violating. I bet his song would change if it were he getting violated instead.He said it didn't matter if they had enough big busts. It was worth it to him to violate everyone's rights if they caught a few big drug dealers or smugglers.
He was good with it as long as he was doing the violating. I bet his song would change if it were he getting violated instead.
The 4th Amendment right is not against search and seizure, but unreasonable search and seizure.Stop and Frisk should be opposed on the grounds that it’s a violation of rights against search and seizure.
What is your definition of "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment?
Well, his song did change. He committed suicide and tried to stage it to look like a murder. Felt bad for him and his wife. We had some good, honest discussions. Even if his understanding of the Constitution was a little tilted.
Without warrant (to make an action seem reasonable or necessary).
While S&F does uncover some unlawful acts, I do not feel the ends justify the means. Now if the LEO 'sees' and has a justification, then the stop could be good. Just picking a person out and to S&F them is not good.
Since a standard already exists for "reasonable suspicion" exactly what do you mean by "Now if the LEO 'sees' and has a justification"?
Ah, now we get to an interesting concept. Does stop and frisk lead to abuse of reasonable suspicion? Does it create an environment where it's too tempting and too easy to justify?
That is a valid question and a sound basis to challenge stop-and-frisk.Ah, now we get to an interesting concept. Does stop and frisk lead to abuse of reasonable suspicion? Does it create an environment where it's too tempting and too easy to justify?
say what now? who was this?
That is a valid question and a sound basis to challenge stop-and-frisk.
We should question whether reasonable suspicion exists in all, or even most, situations where police departments have aggressive stop-and-frisk policies or tactics.
Conversely, police should not ignore reasonable suspicion just because the current tally of the racial makeup of suspects does not match some arbitrary statistic, which is one of the goals of the "effects test" litigation.
That is why many cities have obscure ordinances against groups of 3 or more "loitering." This creates the probable cause.Got it: "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" would be tossed and a warrant would be required for any search or seizure or any kind.
Since a standard already exists for "reasonable suspicion" exactly what do you mean by "Now if the LEO 'sees' and has a justification"?
When NYC had it, the SF stops mirrored the crimes reports based on victims and witnesses statements. That being >90% of all content crime in the city is committed by black and Hispanic young men. SF targeted mostly black and Hispanic young men. The courts still ruled it unconstitutional. Because it is. But the city ruled it unconstitutional not on 4th grounds. It did so based on disparate impact when though the numbers matched reported crime percentages.That is a valid question and a sound basis to challenge stop-and-frisk.
We should question whether reasonable suspicion exists in all, or even most, situations where police departments have aggressive stop-and-frisk policies or tactics.
Conversely, police should not ignore reasonable suspicion just because the current tally of the racial makeup of suspects does not match some arbitrary statistic, which is one of the goals of the "effects test" litigation.
But once they are caught let's actually prosecute and lock them up. This catch and release stuff is not good.
Was this on the Firearms Talk forum?It was in another State. Pretty big news there. Quite the shock to those on that forum that got to know him through the forum over the years. Just goes to show that if you only know someone through the internet you never really know them at all.
Was this on the Firearms Talk forum?
He seemed to be a good guy. I havent been active there for awhile. It has gone down hill in the past few years.Yep. Didn't want to speak ill of the dead so was being vague. I used to have some good private back and forth with him.
He seemed to be a good guy. I havent been active there for awhile. It has gone down hill in the past few years.