(09-22-2016 02:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  "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.

it is not the opposite if you are caught breaking the law. You can't be searched if you're simply SUSPECTED of breaking a law without permission, as that's falls under the search without cause. By your claim, John, nobody that is pulled over for speeding can ever be made to empty out their pocketbooks or even show their driver's license.

If you however have broken a law, and it's proven then and there by an officer... you're no longer under the illegal search clause.

Could it be abused? Yes it could, but do I think the current status of S&F in most claimed cases falls in the abused realm? No I don't. Does it happen at times by some officers? Very likely and it shouldn't...

If that's where Fit's story went I could see him making more sense than being "taught" to run when cops appear.

(09-22-2016 02:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Anyone who supports stop and frisk is both an idiot and a bigot IMO.

(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.

and now the deflection becomes a rabbit trail... though you actually prove the point.

Why aren't guns allowed in schools or government buildings? Primarily because of the danger imposed, right? So it's okay to suspend legal rights when the safety concerns outweigh the rights.

How is 'stop and frisk' in 'high crime' areas any different?

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

Well yes, absolutely. I didn't define the word, nor did I attempt to. She asked a question. If you want to know what she meant, ask her. 'High' is a relative, not an absolute term.

I am convinced that people can determine what constitutes 'high crime' by measuring the crimes in an area and setting some sort of lower limit. As to whom should do this, I'd say the legal system... including judges and lawyers and politicians. Don't like it? Don't vote for them. I'd be fine with (as an example) the state representative from district 5 deciding that his area isn't high crime and the rep from district 3 deciding his IS, and then when district 3 crime goes down and the person gets re-elected and district 5 crime rises and the person gets replaced. There are a thousand ways to define it and it's not for me to decide what she meant. If you want to know what she meant, ask her. I don't live in what I would call a high crime neighborhood... so I'm not asking Trump or Clinton what they're going to do about 'my' problem.

I think there are certain areas that we would all agree are 'high crime'... and others that we wouldn't.

Quote: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?

Were you arrested? No... so 'illegal' isn't the point, is it.

Generally speaking it's not a problem... but if you live in a high crime area, it's dangerous... and as a child, you don't have the right to decide that sort of thing. Your parents and elected officials do.

Quote:

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.

Sure they can. Don't live in a high crime area.

People (kids) can't choose not to go to school. You keep ignoring this when you talk about your situation. It can be both, depending on the situation.

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.

School isn't voluntary, and as I suggested, I suspect this was a leftist designed program (which makes sense). You didn't want to go, but if you're not 18, that isn't your decision to make.

Kids just hanging out often get into trouble. As I said, it's not as if you're playing ball at the park and getting frisked. You're just randomly hanging out. If it's a high crime area, that's not safe.

Quote:

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.

First of all, that's a misinterpretation you keep repeating.... and you know it.... doesn't make it any more true... Race IS a differentiating characteristic of people and it makes sense to look AT white people if your looking FOR a white person... and THAT is good police work... certainly better than stopping a 90 year old woman when you're looking for a 20 year old man.

Second 'on this forum' isn't in this thread. Nobody (Trump or the people who support this) is talking about racial profiling in this situation (except people like you trying to make it something it isn't).

Quote: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.

One judge... It's not actually declared unconstitutional until the Scotus hears it. The fact that minorities were disproportionally stopped doesn't mean they were racially profiled. If I'm going into South Texas or Arizona or California to stop gang violence... Hispanics will be disproportionally represented. That doesn't mean I was going after 'brown' people.

The question was about 'high crime African American neighborhoods'. Guess what? Since it's called an AA neighborhood, the chances are QUITE high that the majority of the stops will be African Americans.

Quote:

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.

You're still targeting people IN that neighborhood, just as I suggested. I didn't ask for alternative solutions... there are numerous possibilities and I never suggested this was the only one or even the best one... I merely suggested that it wasn't targeting in the way you're trying to imply (to make your constitutionality claim). Even something as unbelievable and counter to our culture as martial law is 'constitutional' under the appropriate circumstances. If THAT can be held Constitutional, then stop and frisk can be as well. Whether or not we've reached that point depends on the level of crime in the area you're talking about.. and how badly the people of that area want their problem solved.

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

Welcome to the libertarian party.

If this is truly what you believe than you get what you deserve. The reason a neighborhood is high crime is because we're more concerned with your right to 'hang out' than with stopping the crime. That's perfectly fine... and in many places MORE than fine... don't try and say I don't support your right to feel that way... but it comes with the consequences that criminals will take advantage of your rights. As an example, people who live in deed restricted neighborhoods or gated communities give up a lot of freedoms for the protections they get. You choose the opposite, and that is fine... but don't be surprised when there are consequences to your choices.

It's not 'societies' job to take more responsibility for your safety than you do.

The fact is that the way NY was cleaned up was through aggressive tactics of denying people the right to have any kind of business any where they wanted... to physically move or simply harass the homeless until they found a different place to hang. Did they also provide alternatives? Sure... and nobody has suggested we wouldn't...

(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.

The GOP isn't really any more, but libertarians are... but you're asking 'us' to solve someone else's problem.

This isn't about MORE regulation... we long ago ceded the power to 'keep the peace' to the government. What that looks like depends on how much power of 'criminals' they're trying to overcome. As I said, martial law isn't even against our current regulations, under specific circumstances.

(09-22-2016 02:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I love reading hammy' a comments in this thread. He thinks he is a rational person but is quite delusional and incredibly partisan.

were you looking in the mirror when you posted that?

(09-22-2016 02:56 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I love reading hammy' a comments in this thread. He thinks he is a rational person but is quite delusional and incredibly partisan.

where you looking in the mirror when you posted that?

Obviously personal attacks is all he has on the subject.

I don't see how I'm 'partisan' when we're talking about a New York law, supported by a Mayor who was a Democrat, then a Republican and then an Independent... who DELIVERED A PRIME TIME DNC SPEECH TO SUPPORT HILLARY....

I guess he's just incredibly partisan as well, huh?

*****
I WOULD note that in the decision to 'overturn' the law, the judge said that the city needed a written policy where such stops were authorized...

Implying (just as I said) that targeting specific areas is perfectly acceptable, even to the judge whom SOME claim held this to be unconstitutional.

(09-22-2016 04:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:56 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I love reading hammy' a comments in this thread. He thinks he is a rational person but is quite delusional and incredibly partisan.

where you looking in the mirror when you posted that?

Obviously personal attacks is all he has on the subject.

I don't see how I'm 'partisan' when we're talking about a New York law, supported by a Mayor who was a Democrat, then a Republican and then an Independent... who DELIVERED A PRIME TIME DNC SPEECH TO SUPPORT HILLARY....

you are partisan because you were using circular logic and mental gymnastics to refute fits points, that contradicted your own statements.

how does one refuse to acknowledge "you can choose to not get on an airplane" as a valid point only to then spew crap like "well they can choose to move to a different neighborhood" or "they can choose to switch schools." supporting one while opposing other is contradictory. also you seem to have virtually no knowledge as to the legal standards regarding schools and their ability to search students.

(09-22-2016 04:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are partisan because you were using circular logic and mental gymnastics to refute fits points, that contradicted your own statements.

how does one refuse to acknowledge "you can choose to not get on an airplane" as a valid point only to then spew crap like "well they can choose to move to a different neighborhood" or "they can choose to switch schools." supporting one while opposing other is contradictory. also you seem to have virtually no knowledge as to the legal standards regarding schools and their ability to search students.

So only partisan people use circular logic? Is it not possible that I simply have an opinion? Do ALL opinions have to relate to a party?

I think not, and Bloomberg's support for this proves it. He may be a conservative, but he didn't support Hillary because he's partisan.

I don't need to refute fit's points... at least not the ones you think matter. I called them deflections because they have nothing to do with the subject. That's what the word means. The fact that I addressed them anyway was a courtesy and has nothing to do with my position, because they have nothing to do with the topic. I am merely demonstrating that they don't.

I never said they can choose to switch schools. Your comment is not true.

How is saying you can decide not to fly contradicting that you can decide to move? They are both true and completely unrelated. Your comment is not true.

Supporting one while opposing the other? I actually supported both. Your comment again is not true.

No knowledge about the schools ability to search students? I said nothing about searching students... Again, your comment is not true.

What I said was you don't have the right to not attend school. He used it as an example of 'somewhere you didn't have to go' that had metal detectors. Some schools have metal detectors, and as a child, you HAVE to go there.

Once again, you're personal attacks are so far off base as to be laughable. Literally NOTHING you accused me of saying was said.

No wonder you think I'm partisan. You keep using words I never did.

Oh, and one more thing I don't think is true, but am happy to be proven wrong... Where did I contradict myself?

I think that is LITERALLY everything you claimed I said that is demonstrably untrue.

(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.

That proves that you're a *******. I don't know who the hell taught you to run from the police but whoever did is just a big of a ******* as you. I LIVED in a barrio for my first 18 years and no one would run from the cops. It's funny that we didn't like cops but we respected their position. It seems you're wasting time in el paso and should show up to protest in charlotte. They need you there.

(09-22-2016 02:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Anyone who supports stop and frisk is both an idiot and a bigot IMO.

By Johnny's post I'm guilty. The only thing though is I COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT JOHNNY THINKS because that's what I think of his posts anyway.

I'm 100% for Stop and Frisk. The more guns that are found and taken away is probably one less death in a high crime area. Thugs should be the first to be searched and don't ask how we can differentiate they almost put a sign on themselves, "I'm a thug".

hammy: paul ryan wouldn't even support it. that should be pretty telling.

your logic is straight up retarded. no one would ever compare the rights of students in schools to policing because school administrators don't need probable cause and have a much greater authority to search students than a cop can with civilians. SCOTUS has made this clear in a half dozen cases.

secondly only a very small number of schools use metal detectors. and the ones that do usually do it in a restricted way (only when there is heightened gang violence or random selections).

but what makes your logic so retarded is that you refuse to acknowledge the foundation of the legal argument being it is a location people choose to enter (which you can't get around) and it is done on the justification of public safety.* you can't have air travel/border crossing without security. 9/11 made sure of that.

*It's why police are allowed to get away with DUI checkpoints. stop and frisk is not a public safety measure. anyone who thinks that is retarded. let's face it you have no legitimate argument only incredibly flawed talking points.

*Literally NOTHING you accused me of saying was said.*

except it was either said or implied.

(09-22-2016 09:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  stop and frisk is not a public safety measure. anyone who thinks that is retarded.

Let this idiot post sink in folks.

It makes me sad to see people advocating this degree of profiling shake down bafoonery. Talk about degradation of civil liberties. Unkted Police States of America.

Boy, is our country going down the tubes fast.

(09-22-2016 09:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  hammy: paul ryan wouldn't even support it. that should be pretty telling.

your logic is straight up retarded. no one would ever compare the rights of students in schools to policing because school administrators don't need probable cause and have a much greater authority to search students than a cop can with civilians. SCOTUS has made this clear in a half dozen cases.

secondly only a very small number of schools use metal detectors. and the ones that do usually do it in a restricted way (only when there is heightened gang violence or random selections).

but what makes your logic so retarded is that you refuse to acknowledge the foundation of the legal argument being it is a location people choose to enter (which you can't get around) and it is done on the justification of public safety.* you can't have air travel/border crossing without security. 9/11 made sure of that.

*It's why police are allowed to get away with DUI checkpoints. stop and frisk is not a public safety measure. anyone who thinks that is retarded. let's face it you have no legitimate argument only incredibly flawed talking points.

Gotta say, yet again, you are a mid-master at saying (typing) lot's of characters, and saying nothing.

What "point" did you possibly make in that 400 word screed?!?

If anyone can find something of value

Whew.

(09-23-2016 12:23 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  It makes me sad to see people advocating this degree of profiling shake down bafoonery. Talk about degradation of civil liberties. Unkted Police States of America.

As long as they are profiling, this is good police work. If they just use random S&F then it's near pointless and is just as stupid as TSA.

(09-23-2016 12:23 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  It makes me sad to see people advocating this degree of profiling shake down bafoonery. Talk about degradation of civil liberties. Unkted Police States of America.

If you don't like it move, stop effing up or turn criminals in. Pretty simple concepts. Law abiding citizens shouldn't be threatened by it.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-22-2016 02:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  "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.

(09-22-2016 11:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  stop and frisk is not a public safety measure. anyone who thinks that is retarded.

Let this idiot post sink in folks.

Same folks yell and complain when something does happen that yell and complain when folks try to prevent said something from happening. There is no pleasing some folks and some folks just live to complain no matter the subject matter. Best to just ignore those folks.

For the people who raised such a ******* stink over TSA scans, agreeing with stop and frisk should at least cause some mental discomfort