Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by AR10ShooterinNC, Oct 9, 2018.
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.
Chicago Cop Come-here Policing tactic.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
That is what liberals do. They promote policies that they know will increase violent crime. Then they demand more police state tactics and elimination of more constitutional rights as the solution for the problems they created.
I can hear it now ...
“If you have nothing to hide why worry?”
... same reason I don’t consent to a vehicle search ... if you have no probable cause or paper why should I wave my right?
Stop-and-frisk does not require probable cause, but the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion.
My problem with legal challenges from organizations like the ACLU is that they try to fence in stop-and-frisk with "effects tests." Yes, people stopped and questioned by police in the south side of Chicago are mainly black people, but that "disproportionate" result is not discrimination but a reflection of the environment. The paperwork required (for the ACLU) to document the actions are not discriminatory is so burdensome that the police just give up.
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
Kind of like an argument I had with a cop one time on another forum. He justified ALL traffic stops because that is where they get huge drug busts. I asked about the all the cars that weren't committing crimes and everyone's right against unreasonable searches. 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.
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.
The 4th Amendment right is not against search and seizure, but unreasonable search and seizure.
What is your definition of "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment?
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.
say what now? who was this?
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"?
Yeah, what you said. Seems like the same. I'm not a lawyer but I did sleep last night...
What are you trying to say?
It seemed (#13) you wanted a warrant for any search or seizure, but now it seems (#16) you are okay with no warrant if there is reasonable suspicion.
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.
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.
@gc70 I've never been comfortable with the grounds of claiming it targets minorites as the basis to strike down SnF.
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.
IMO, which doesn't count for much, reasonable suspicion is crap. Unless a crime has been committed and the suspect matches a description or has some other evidence against him, he should be free in his person. I think I've been around enough to recognize bad groups or people out in the world, and I'd bet I could guess right a good percentage of the time about whether they are criminal thugs or not, but until they actually are doing something they should be left alone. But once they are caught let's actually prosecute and lock them up. This catch and release stuff is not good.
That is why many cities have obscure ordinances against groups of 3 or more "loitering." This creates the probable cause.
High Point has many such ordinances, intended to create probable cause to stop any vehicle. They even have their own "maximum height" for any light on a vehicle.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
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.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
^^^^^ This. We might not have creeping encroachments on everybody's rights if society was actually protected from the bad guys rather than them going through a revolving door that puts them back on the streets sooner than the cops who are still filling out arrest paperwork.
Was this on the Firearms Talk forum?
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.
True. Same couple people in the same pissing matches.
Any stop is supposed to have reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime or is about to.
Upon any stop and frisk, and while recording if possible, always very nicely ask what crime do you have reason to believe I have committed or am about about to commit a crime, and may be armed and dangerous as Case Law Terry vs Ohio states, officer, or sir / mam.
Looking suspicious, or the area you are in is not specific enough for a Terry Stop, or as they call it, Stop and Frisk.
This is one area where I disagree with a lot of mainstream Republicans and Democrats who would use a police state, as the Libertarian in me can’t stand the erosions of our constitutional rights to privacy.
Separate names with a comma.