(09-22-2016 11:26 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 11:22 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is why we were taught as kids to run whenever we saw the cops even if we were not doing anything wrong. Because if we go caught, we were stopped and asked to empty our pockets.

Whoever taught you that was a moron. No wonder "your communities" are so ****** up. Running from the police in and of itself would be considered a suspicious activity and creates a legitimate reason to stop you.

yep!

I am hispanic and I was never taught to run from the police.

(09-22-2016 10:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional.

Second of all, it doesn't even work.

I love how the cons on here laughed at you for providing factually correct statements and said "thinking is your problem"

I know. It just goes to show what we are up against. It's hard to have an honest debate when they won't even acknowledge basic facts.

Edit: deleted my bs.

*FACT ALERT* S&F works fantastically. *FACT ALERT*

And I love your typical liberal bs that we can't have an honest debate until we agree with you. Priceless. First rule of debate: everyone agree Might put that in my sig.

(09-22-2016 11:22 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is why we were taught as kids to run whenever we saw the cops even if we were not doing anything wrong. Because if we go caught, we were stopped and asked to empty our pockets.

And if this is true, Fit.. .(and I have SERIOUS doubts about this claim) you really need to re-evaluate who taught you a LOAD of horses*** (and that's putting it politely).

No wonder your priorities seem to be so screwed up when it comes to police officers.

(09-22-2016 11:22 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The difference is that at airports or places where they have metal detectors, you can choose not to go or simply turn around and leave.

You can't simply turn around at a government building if you have/need services there. You (as a child) can't decline to attend school.

Quote:Stop and frisk means that for whatever reason, a cop can stop you and you do not have the option to leave or not go in those areas because it could happen anywhere.

No... according to the comment, it can only happen in 'high crime' areas. You can move from that area.

Quote:This is why we were taught as kids to run whenever we saw the cops even if we were not doing anything wrong. Because if we go caught, we were stopped and asked to empty our pockets.

Odd, I was taught not to carry anything illegal in my pockets.

If you weren't doing anything wrong, why would you run from people whose job it is to reduce crime in your neighborhood by catching those DOING wrong things?

It seems to me that the number one cause of high crime and police 'error' in certain neighborhoods would be exactly what you described. If you run, how does the cop know if you're running because your parents taught you something stupid or if you're running because you've got a gun in your pocket?

You JUST gave them probable cause to detain you, AND you just put the cop on alert, and thus yourself at risk.

Can it be abused? Of course it can. ANY authority (or right) can be abused... but 'what we're doing' obviously isn't working.

RANDOM stop and frisk is not necessary or appropriate. S&F targeted in high crime areas makes perfect sense to me. Innocent people have far less to fear from S&F than from criminals. If they don't, then it's not a high crime area.

Fit has posted before that he was taught to run from police. Maybe he's gotten his papers in order since and no longer does.

(09-22-2016 11:28 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 11:26 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 11:22 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is why we were taught as kids to run whenever we saw the cops even if we were not doing anything wrong. Because if we go caught, we were stopped and asked to empty our pockets.

Whoever taught you that was a moron. No wonder "your communities" are so ****** up. Running from the police in and of itself would be considered a suspicious activity and creates a legitimate reason to stop you.

yep!

I am hispanic and I was never taught to run from the police.

I can see the teaching running from the cops as Mexican heritage, considering how corrupt the cops are in Mexico.

(09-22-2016 11:22 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 11:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm trying to get past the (once again) twisted logic of the OP

In order to address violence in black communities, Trump suggests 'stop and frisk'.

If a white or mixed community had similar violence problems, the same thing would apply.

How is this any different than metal detectors and random screening at airports or other sensitive areas? It's somewhat a version of martial law, which certainly is constitutional in extraordinary circumstances. We can debate whether these circumstances are extraordinary or not, but many leftists think they're extraordinary enough to warrant eliminating second amendment rights... and 'stop and frisk' is only a very minor part of martial law.

The suggestion is because of the inordinately high crime, not the race of the people who live there. I understand that doesn't fit the election year narrative, but once you move past that, it should make sense. Not saying you have to agree... just saying that it's no more outlandish than suggesting that we take gun rights away from 300mm people to stop 10-20,000 crimes.

The difference is that at airports or places where they have metal detectors, you can choose not to go or simply turn around and leave.

Stop and frisk means that for whatever reason, a cop can stop you and you do not have the option to leave or not go in those areas because it could happen anywhere.

This is why we were taught as kids to run whenever we saw the cops even if we were not doing anything wrong. Because if we go caught, we were stopped and asked to empty our pockets.

I've never been taught that. Granted--and against popular Spin Room belief--I'm a black guy who has never spent any time over 2 hours in a crime-ridden area and most of my life I've been in places small enough to know almost every police officer from somewhere. I've also been in the position to arrest people.

Running from the cops on sight is the equivalent to speeding off in your car when you're near one. What is the cop supposed to think?

Quote:You can't simply turn around at a government building if you have/need services there. You (as a child) can't decline to attend school.

If you need services at a government building or school, you can prepare not to take anything that isn't allowed into the building. Not so with stop and frisk because it happens at random.

Quote:No... according to the comment, it can only happen in 'high crime' areas. You can move from that area.

What exact are "high crime" areas. Who gets to make that determination? What crimes are we talking about? Do white collar crime count?

Quote:Odd, I was taught not to carry anything illegal in my pockets.

I was taught by my parents not to carry anything illegal in my pockets too. That didn't stop cops from stopping us and asking us to empty our pockets. It happened so often that we adopted the run technique.

If you weren't doing anything wrong, why would you run from people whose job it is to reduce crime in your neighborhood by catching those DOING wrong things?

Because they weren't reducing crime by stopping us. They were simply harassing us. They did this on an almost daily basis mostly because we refused to go to recreation in the summer.

Quote:RANDOM stop and frisk is not necessary or appropriate. S&F targeted in high crime areas makes perfect sense to me. Innocent people have far less to fear from S&F than from criminals. If they don't, then it's not a high crime area.

[/quote]

Just because innocent people have nothing to fear does not mean they should be subjected to random searches. You might think they are never random but when cops racially profile people then it isn't random. It's targeted.

Now as far as Trump is concerned, I disagree with stop and frisk. I believe it's unconstitutional. There are certain things that I don't think you can do even if the intentions and end result can be good.

I also don't think he's doing this with the purpose of making an actual suggestion. He's doing this all to bolster who's already voting for him. Keep them excited and nodding their heads.

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Donald Trump will propose the expansion of the controversial stop-and-frisk policing program in a town hall aimed at African-American voters Wednesday.


In the event that will air Wednesday night on Fox News's "Hannity," Trump was asked by an audience member how he would address violence in black communities, according to a transcript.
“Well one of the things I’d do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to,” Trump responded.

Trump said policies have to be "proactive" and that stop-and-frisk worked "incredibly well" in New York City.

“Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do,” Trump said.

Link


I thought this was unconstitutional?

That'll work. Get on with it when you're in the WHITE HOUSE, Donald.

Are they truly random? I'd say no... and that's just because of the neighborhood I live in right now.

The only time I've known search & frisk to come into play is when someone is doing something questionable by local ordinance or on a traffic stop that resulted in questionable behavior.

For instance, if you're hanging around in an area that's got high-drug dealing areas.. and the local ordinance says no congregating on a street corner.. and you're congregating in a group then yes, they've got every responsible to stop and check you, by your own local ordinance.

But your claim is just TOO vague to be taken at face value as is...

(09-22-2016 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:You can't simply turn around at a government building if you have/need services there. You (as a child) can't decline to attend school.

If you need services at a government building or school, you can prepare not to take anything that isn't allowed into the building. Not so with stop and frisk because it happens at random.

So your problem is that people with something they aren't suppose to have aren't given a clear heads up to get rid of it. Swell.

(09-22-2016 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:You can't simply turn around at a government building if you have/need services there. You (as a child) can't decline to attend school.

If you need services at a government building or school, you can prepare not to take anything that isn't allowed into the building. Not so with stop and frisk because it happens at random.

Wow... what part of 'don't have illegal things in your pockets in public' is foreign to you? This is just wanting a 'heads up' for illegal activities, which defeats the entire purpose. If criminals had heads up, they'd (like you) either run or take a different route.

Deflection from reality #1

Quote:

Quote:No... according to the comment, it can only happen in 'high crime' areas. You can move from that area.

What exact are "high crime" areas. Who gets to make that determination? What crimes are we talking about? Do white collar crime count?

Ask the person who asked the question about what Trump would do about high crime areas. The IRS, FBI and Treasury etc don't get too involved in gang violence but are absolutely involved in white collar crime... so sure. I'm not sure stop and frisk would help since white collar crime 'tools' don't usually go in people's pockets, but the same thing applies in terms of targeting criminals with tools designed to negatively impact them.
Deflection #2

Quote:

Quote:Odd, I was taught not to carry anything illegal in my pockets.

I was taught by my parents not to carry anything illegal in my pockets too. That didn't stop cops from stopping us and asking us to empty our pockets. It happened so often that we adopted the run technique.

So you weren't taught this by your parents, but by your stupid friends? If you didn't have anything illegal, all it cost you was a few moments of your time. Running could cost you your freedom and life. Not your wisest decision.

As I asked, how is this any different (though far less random) than suggesting 'frisking' 300mm people to register their guns and even making 'running' a crime in order to stop some fraction of 20,000 deaths?

Quote:

Quote:If you weren't doing anything wrong, why would you run from people whose job it is to reduce crime in your neighborhood by catching those DOING wrong things?

Because they weren't reducing crime by stopping us. They were simply harassing us. They did this on an almost daily basis mostly because we refused to go to recreation in the summer.

I don't know what 'refused to go to recreation' means, but it sounds to me like you're the problem. You weren't doing what was expected of you and they knew it and they tried to use simple 'annoyance' to encourage your compliance... rather than do what you were supposed to, you upped the ante. If you don't see the connection between truancy or idle hands and crime, I really can't help you. I doubt they were stopping and frisking you on the baseball field or at the beach or in the library or at the movies or on a picnick in the park... Hint... high crime areas have a WHOLE LOT of people randomly wandering the streets or 'hanging out'. If it were a safe neighborhood, nobody would care... but in a high crime area, it's not safe. Whether or not you were at risk of being a problem, you were at risk of being a victim (if it were a high crime area). The cop was doing his job and protecting you by encouraging you to be in a more organized and 'safe' area.

Aren't after-school activities, year round school and 'recreation' often cited (even and often by the left) as solutions to teen crime issues?

and we're not talking about you and where you were, but 'high crime' areas. Deflection 3

Sounds to me like you and your friends were wasting the cops time, not the other way around.

Quote:

Quote:RANDOM stop and frisk is not necessary or appropriate. S&F targeted in high crime areas makes perfect sense to me. Innocent people have far less to fear from S&F than from criminals. If they don't, then it's not a high crime area.

Just because innocent people have nothing to fear does not mean they should be subjected to random searches. You might think they are never random but when cops racially profile people then it isn't random. It's targeted.
[/quote]
Deflection #4. Nobody is talking about racial profiling. They're talking about 'location' profiling. Yes, it's targeted, based on a prevalence of crime... not a prevalence of race.

How else do you do something about 'high crime areas' (the specific question at hand) if you don't target people IN that high crime area?

The problem is that when it comes to THIS issue, (like many with voter ID) you want problems solved without inconveniencing the people who will directly benefit from solving the problem... but in many other issues, you don't mind inconveniencing people who have nothing to do with the problem whatsoever.

Stop and frisk is pointless and illegal in low crime areas. It may be a necessary infringement in high crime ones.

Quote:Wow... what part of 'don't have illegal things in your pockets in public' is foreign to you?

Deflection from reality #1

What about guns? It's not illegal to carry a gun but it isn't allowed in schools or government buildings. It doesn't have to be illegal to be banned.

Quote:Ask the person who asked the question about what Trump would do about high crime areas. The IRS, FBI and Treasury etc don't get too involved in gang violence but are absolutely involved in white collar crime... so sure. I'm not sure stop and frisk would help since white collar crime 'tools' don't usually go in people's pockets, but the same thing applies in terms of targeting criminals with tools designed to negatively impact them.
Deflection #2

Ask the person who asked the question? And you say I'm deflecting?

Quote:So you weren't taught this by your parents, but by your stupid friends? If you didn't have anything illegal, all it cost you was a few moments of your time. Running could cost you your freedom and life. Not your wisest decision.

But it didn't cost us just a few moment of our time because in some cases, we were either taken home, our parents were called, or we were taking to summer recreation and threatened not to leave until it was over. They would say if we were caught again, there would be trouble. Caught doing what? Hanging around the neighborhood? Since when was playing and hanging around illegal?

Quote:As I asked, how is this any different (though far less random) than suggesting 'frisking' 300mm people to register their guns and even making 'running' a crime in order to stop some fraction of 20,000 deaths?

Because again, people can choose to get a gun or not get a gun. People cannot however choose not to get fisk and searched.

Quote:I don't know what 'refused to go to recreation' means, but it sounds to me like you're the problem. You weren't doing what was expected of you and they knew it and they tried to use simple 'annoyance' to encourage your compliance... rather than do what you were supposed to, you upped the ante. If you don't see the connection between truancy or idle hands and crime, I really can't help you. I doubt they were stopping and frisking you on the baseball field or at the beach or in the library or at the movies or on a picnick in the park...

Allow me to explain. During the summer, we had a program called "recreation" it was run by the school and it was totally voluntary. Our parents would try and force us to go because they offered free lunch and that was a big help for poor families like mine. However, it was boring and you had to stay four hours if you wanted lunch. So my friends and I would skip it. Neighbors knew about the program and would call the cops if they saw kids just hanging around. If the cops caught you, they would take you home or recreation.

Quote:Deflection #4. Nobody is talking about racial profiling. They're talking about 'location' profiling. Yes, it's targeted, based on a prevalence of crime... not a prevalence of race.

No body is talking about racial profiling? Then you just haven't been paying attention. First of all, people on this very forum have suggested that racial profiling is in fact good police work. Second of all, Stop and Frisk as it was done in NYC was determined unconstitutional for exactly that reason. In 2011, there was something like 750k stop and frisk instances and in those cases, minorities were disproportionately stopped.

Quote:How else do you do something about 'high crime areas' (the specific question at hand) if you don't target people IN that high crime area?

By doing exactly what is being done in NYC where the crime rate has dropped 3 straight years. You assign cops to neighborhoods and you get those cops to reach out to the community and actually get to know the people who live there. You gain their trust to the point where they are helping you determine who is and isn't a problem rather than "random" fisk and search.

Quote:The problem is that when it comes to THIS issue, (like many with voter ID) you want problems solved without inconveniencing the people who will directly benefit from solving the problem... but in many other issues, you don't mind inconveniencing people who have nothing to do with the problem whatsoever.

Frisk and Search is an inconvenience just like voter I.D. because it doesn't solve the problem, it creates a bigger one.

(09-22-2016 07:08 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  More freedoms slipping away. I thought the TGOP was for less govt regulations, yet here we go again.

"stop and frisk" is legal per the judicial system, thus no freedoms have "slipped away".

(09-22-2016 01:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:So you weren't taught this by your parents, but by your stupid friends? If you didn't have anything illegal, all it cost you was a few moments of your time. Running could cost you your freedom and life. Not your wisest decision.

But it didn't cost us just a few moment of our time because in some cases, we were either taken home, our parents were called, or we were taking to summer recreation and threatened not to leave until it was over. They would say if we were caught again, there would be trouble. Caught doing what? Hanging around the neighborhood? Since when was playing and hanging around illegal?

Again, did your LOCAL community have anti-loitering/congregating laws at the time?

Ironically, it seems that you should be glad that it happened, because it took you off the streets

Quote:Because again, people can choose to get a gun or not get a gun. People cannot however choose not to get fisk and searched.

Actually not true.. constitution says "illegal search and seizures".

If you've broken a local law, you are no longer illegally searched however.

Quote:Allow me to explain. During the summer, we had a program called "recreation" it was run by the school and it was totally voluntary. Our parents would try and force us to go because they offered free lunch and that was a big help for poor families like mine. However, it was boring and you had to stay four hours if you wanted lunch. So my friends and I would skip it. Neighbors knew about the program and would call the cops if they saw kids just hanging around. If the cops caught you, they would take you home or recreation.

So you're blaming the cops who were CALLED by the neighbors who are following up on a citizen's concern? (Or the fact that your parents sent you to try to get some assistance in their lives?)

I note you don't put examples of where you and your friends went loitering too... Business? Public park? Around a neighbor's house...

I do get that you say it's voluntary.. but the moment a neighbor called it in as suspicious and the cops appeared...

Operator: "How can I help you ma'am?"
Neighbor: There are some kids gathering around my house, and I'm not sure what they're up to.
Operator: Yes ma'am, we'll send an officer over to check on them.

Officer arrives... and you RAN (whether on your own, or at the behest of your friends, instead of a "No, sir officer, we're just here hanging out, and not doing anything wrong".

(side note: And considering you earlier said you were "Taught" to run. Maybe you might want to think about who did that 'teaching".)

What is an officer supposed to think?

Any idea that you were in the right and your story is a legitimate example of why S&F is bad really needs to be reconsidered.

But you were young, so at the time you missed a good learning experience.

But at your age now to say "S&F" is bad and here's my story as to why... "Because I didn't want to do what my parents made me, so they stuck the mean cops on me?"

Nope, not working as a good example for me...

Quote:No body is talking about racial profiling? Then you just haven't been paying attention. First of all, people on this very forum have suggested that racial profiling is in fact good police work.

But again, all the racial profiling that has been discussed has been in high-crime AREAS.

(09-22-2016 01:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:Wow... what part of 'don't have illegal things in your pockets in public' is foreign to you?

Deflection from reality #1

What about guns? It's not illegal to carry a gun but it isn't allowed in schools or government buildings. It doesn't have to be illegal to be banned.

[/quote]

Actually it is illegal in most places to carry guns into schools or government buildings.

And in South Carolina there is technically no place where you are banned from carrying a gun. In order to prohibit firearms from entering a premises the local has to meet a specific legal code or else the ban is illegitimate. If the property meets the code then at that point it becomes a crime to carry a firearm into that location. In other words there is no such thing as "legal but banned" in South Carolina.

I love reading hammy' a comments in this thread. He thinks he is a rational person but is quite delusional and incredibly partisan.

"If you've broken a local law, you are no longer illegally searched however."

That is literally the exact opposite of how the consititution works.

Anyone who supports stop and frisk is both an idiot and a bigot IMO.