(09-23-2016 09:49 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(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.

My first thought as well. Those living in high crime areas: "We need the police to come and clean up the crime in our neighborhood, but don't do anything proactive like search and frisk". I guess the cops are supposed to use mental telepathy, otherwise all they can do is react AFTER another crime has been committed.......all the while being accused of being racist.

Talk about a no win situation - solve the crime problem, but we'll tie your hands and call you racist when you try and get criminals off the street.

(09-23-2016 10:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  For the people who raised such a ******* stink over TSA scans, agreeing with stop and frisk should at least cause some mental discomfort

which people?

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

Yep. It tells me that supporting it isn't 'Partisan' as you accused.

You realized you just proved that you were wrong and lied, right?

Quote:your logic is straight up retarded.

Maybe it's your reading comprehension skills that are straight up retarded?

To your comment on the rights at school... same as the rights at a Federal building. The claim was that you had the right to not go to those places... and you DON'T have the right not to go to school. Nobody was talking about what you're talking about. You seem to agree with me that Fit's point was a deflection. You just ignore that I said it wasn't related to the debate by continually trying to claim that I said it was.

Follow these words...

The point that HE made about having the right not to go to places where you might be searched without probable cause is not in ANY way related to 'stop and frisk'. In addition to that, there is at least ONE place where his argument isn't true. That's as far as the comparison goes. It's a deflection. Period.

Quote: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).

You mean like 'high crime schools'? That's precisely why I drew this tiny comparison to the plan. I never supported widespread use of S&F. I actually never even supported it any more than to say it's not unconstitutional or without ANY possible merit. Under the right circumstances, Martial law is legal and has possible merit. I honestly can't imagine we'd ever really get to that point, but that is what the law says.

Obviously, some schools think they have big enough problems to warrant unusual actions. Some neighborhoods probably do as well.

Quote: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.

Again, you ignore that I didn't bring up the comparison. I said it was a deflection. You seem to agree. Although I don't understand how measures designed specifically to address the issue of violent neighborhoods somehow (in your twisted mind) wouldn't similarly be justified by 'public safety'. It's simply not at all the same issue... which again, is why I called it a deflection.

Quote:*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.

So HERE is the only place where you address anything I said. YOU don't believe that S&F is a public safety measure. As I said, that is fine to disagree with that. I certainly am not convinced (and have said so) that it is the best one... but I'm similarly unaware of any 'special knowledge' you have in this area.

YOU accused me of supporting it on a partisan basis... and then proved yourself wrong by showing that one of the leaders of the party you associate me with doesn't support it?? ignoring that we're talking about a law that has essentially been on the books in NYC in some form or fashion for MANY years... not Texas... supported by someone who openly endorsed Hillary and by your own admission rejected by a leader of the 'other' party. Talk about flawed logic. Not arguing that this makes it right or wrong... just clearly (to anyone with a brain) not 'partisan'.

Many of the public safety officials of New York (whom I'm 100% certain know far more about public safety than you or I ever will) obviously disagree with you on it being a public safety measure. Similarly (and as I've said and you agree) the court decision barring it merely seems to require a specific written policy as to 'where' such a measure is appropriate, and not something that can be done anywhere at any time.

I don't favor it in my neighborhood, but I don't live in a high crime one. If those who do think it would help them (and obviously, despite your claims, many of them DO think it would) they should be allowed to do it. If you don't want to live in that area and be subjected to random searches in an effort to curb the crime, then don't live there or don't vote for officials who support it, regardless of which party they come from. I feel confident that MOST of the people living in a truly high crime area would happily (and temporarily) exchange the occasional random searches for the risk of them or their loved ones being the victim of violence. If it works, then they would no longer be high crime and they would be better off and no longer need the policy. If it doesn't work, then you end the policy. Really pretty simple. If you disagree, fine... but my logic here is neither circuitous, partisan nor retarded.

(09-22-2016 10:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  *Literally NOTHING you accused me of saying was said.*

except it was either said or implied.

Then quote it if I said it. You can't because I didn't.... and I proved it. Put up or shut up.

It was also NEVER implied, though it seems you inferred it. You might want to look up those words. Your reading comprehension deficiencies are not MY problem.

(09-23-2016 10:34 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 09:49 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(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.

My first thought as well. Those living in high crime areas: "We need the police to come and clean up the crime in our neighborhood, but don't do anything proactive like search and frisk". I guess the cops are supposed to use mental telepathy, otherwise all they can do is react AFTER another crime has been committed.......all the while being accused of being racist.

Talk about a no win situation - solve the crime problem, but we'll tie your hands and call you racist when you try and get criminals off the street.

It's Baltimore writ large. People hate proactive policing up until the point they get reactive policing then they want proactive policing again only to complain about it soon after. It's the ultimate no win situation.

(09-23-2016 10:37 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 10:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  For the people who raised such a ******* stink over TSA scans, agreeing with stop and frisk should at least cause some mental discomfort

which people?

Our very own board conservatives.

(09-23-2016 11:04 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 10:37 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 10:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  For the people who raised such a ******* stink over TSA scans, agreeing with stop and frisk should at least cause some mental discomfort

which people?

Our very own board conservatives.

Link?

(09-23-2016 09:43 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(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.

[b]If you don't like it move, [\b] 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

Still a dumb thing to say.

(09-23-2016 11:14 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 09:43 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(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.

[b]If you don't like it move, [\b] 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

Still a dumb thing to say.

Not really. It's how the US gov't is set up. I've refused to relocate to certain places because of local policies and/or taxes.

(09-23-2016 11:04 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 10:37 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 10:10 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  For the people who raised such a ******* stink over TSA scans, agreeing with stop and frisk should at least cause some mental discomfort

which people?

Our very own board conservatives.

I think for most it's the dumb*** way they go about it. As I posted earlier, it's near pointless. Profile. Not stopping the people that brought about the need to begin with, those who appear to be young Muslim males, out of some pc madness and instead dragging grandma from her wheelchair. Stupid.

(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.

What's wrong with it?

DUI checkpoints and metal detectors have a legal basis on public safety. You don't see DUI checkpoints outside of times when there is an increased drunken driving risk. Football games and drinking holidays. Like I said only retards confuse law enforcement measures with public safety measures and fail to see the difference.

(09-23-2016 09:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(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.

So it appears you hate the constitution as well (or at the very least don't understand it).

(09-23-2016 12:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 09:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(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.

So it appears you hate the constitution as well (or at the very least don't understand it).

So by your logic if you BREAK the law, you do not get searched.

Stop and frisk works wonders.

It's also BS constitutionally.

Pick your poison.

(09-23-2016 12:12 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 12:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 09:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(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.

So it appears you hate the constitution as well (or at the very least don't understand it).

So by your logic if you BREAK the law, you do not get searched.

you can't go fishing searching people in the hopes you find something. you need to have a legitimate reason for conducting a search. that's like a founding principle of the constitution and it is scary you don't understand that.

(09-23-2016 12:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Stop and frisk works wonders.

It's also BS constitutionally.

Pick your poison.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

The John0 decoder ring:

Retarded (his favorite), flawed = disagrees with John0
Right-wing = disagrees with Marx, Lenin, and Chairman Mao
Racist = continues to disagree

Quote:Yep. It tells me that supporting it isn't 'Partisan' as you accused.

You realized you just proved that you were wrong and lied, right?

you are hopeless. do I really need to baby you having to do a breakdown on a simple sentence so you understand the meaning like a teacher does to a 4th grader? it's like you lower your IQ 15 points every time you read my posts.

the obvious ==> when I say partisan I'm saying the issue is so obvious as to right and wrong that the only people defending it are those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. in other words the more moderate people on one side aren't even defending it which is exactly what is happening here. the fact that ryan isn't supporting it proves he knows it's not a topic the GOP can win.

I would say trying to somehow spin paul ryan's stance as something that supports your case is partisan in itself.

Quote:Maybe it's your reading comprehension skills

I love how you make this comment then blatantly misrepresent what I said.

Quote:To your comment on the rights at school... same as the rights at a Federal building.

except anyone educated on the topic knows this is not the case. if anything it would easier to list all the parts of the bill of rights that apply to students in school because so many of the rules cops have to follow absolutely do not apply to school administrators. the relationship between school administrator and student is closer to parent-child than cop-civilian by a mile. the point is don't even go there. like at all. it is a retarded comparison.

the only way they are comparable is the fact that you choose to go to location X in both instances. I know you are feeble minded so bear with me here. people going to a federal building or school know well beforehand that they have to showup to this location at a specific time and thus can ditch anything incriminating. You argument is a logical fallacy of epic proportions because it rests on the preposterous notion that people lack the ability to ditch incriminating evidence. that's the critical part to it. they have a forewarning of a search well in advance.

how can you support an argument so logically flawed and still think you are an intelligent person? like seriously?

Quote:The point that HE made about having the right not to go to places where you might be searched without probable cause is not in ANY way related to 'stop and frisk'.

which is a factually correct statement.

Quote:You mean like 'high crime schools'? That's precisely why I drew this tiny comparison to the plan.

I have never heard of "high crime areas" being the legal justification for metal detectors. I did a quick google search and found nothing supporting the notion that school metal detectors as a legal justification are dependent on the area being high crime.

so your "tiny comparison" is asinine because schools are incomparable. then asinine again because "high crime areas" have no legal justification for it.

Quote:Under the right circumstances, Martial law is legal and has possible merit. I honestly can't imagine we'd ever really get to that point, but that is what the law says.

Oh FFS

Quote:YOU accused me of supporting it on a partisan basis... and then proved yourself wrong by showing that one of the leaders of the party you associate me with doesn't support it??

you lack reading comprehension skills (oh the irony) and misread what I said even though the point I was making should have been obvious.

Quote:Many of the public safety officials of New York (whom I'm 100% certain know far more about public safety than you or I ever will) obviously disagree with you on it being a public safety measure.

god what a dumb argument. "if law enforcement thinks this is a good policy then it must be good policy" is the dumbest political argument imaginable. law enforcement are literally the worst people to go to for this topic. they don't support transparency of their own officers, they support making drugs illegal when common sense says that isn't necessary, and if given the ability would eliminate every restriction on searches. civil asset fortitude??? unlocking iphone software, mass data collection. god what a joke. the constitution exists for this very reason. people can't be trusted to regulate themselves. they will give themselves more power at every opportunity.

Quote:Similarly (and as I've said and you agree) the court decision barring it merely seems to require a specific written policy as to 'where' such a measure is appropriate, and not something that can be done anywhere at any time.

and what does the written policy need? could need basically nothing (unlikely) could need a probable cause standard (pretty likely). S&F is effectively dead as a legal entity. the reason it hasn't advanced through the courts is because it was killed off before it could advance any further. put it in front of the SCOTUS with a 5-4 lib majority and it gets ruled unconstitutional.

Quote: you don't want to live in that area and be subjected to random searches in an effort to curb the crime, then don't live there or don't vote for officials who support it, regardless of which party they come from.

god what a stupid comment. you shouldn't have to move to have the constitution apply to you. you are ignorant if you think people should have to uproot their lives just to have the same rights as others and completely moronic if you think people willingly opt to be in s*** neighborhoods.

Quote:I feel confident that MOST of the people living in a truly high crime area would happily (and temporarily) exchange the occasional random searches for the risk of them or their loved ones being the victim of violence.

polls disagree with this. and two it is a myth that this is even an effective tactic. if inner city kids grow up in a culture where they feel they are being harassed by the police...they won't respect the police and that leads to problems.

Quote:Then quote it if I said it.

the problem with cons on this forum is you can throw something right in their face and they refuse to accept it. I have had to repeat arguments with you in this post because you refused to see it the first time, and chances are you will refuse to see it this time around. so why bother here?

Quote: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?

You're logic would hold true if the police fenced off an entire section of the city and stopped and frisked every single person that approached that section. Then people would have the option to enter or not just like in a building and or school.

Quote: 'High' is a relative, not an absolute term.

This is exactly why stop and frisk is a bad idea and unconstitutional by they way.

Quote: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.

Families can more easily choose to go to a different school private or home school if they don't agree with the policies. However, it is much more difficult to leave home simply because someone arbitrarily decides you now live in ah "high crime" area.

Quote: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.

This was summer school and it was absolutely voluntary.

Quote: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.

Kids do get in trouble but shouldn't cops actually wait until there is trouble rather than harass kids?

Quote: 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...

But that isn't racial profiling? mmmkay.

Quote: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).

Really because I could have sworn that Trump was asked specifically what he would do about BLACKS killing BLACKS in Chicago.

Quote: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.

Perhaps not but when you stop and frisk minorities for drugs more than you do Whites, even though drug use among all races is relatively the same, then that presents a problem.

Quote: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.

And that's fine so long as you are stopping and frisking everyone.



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.

Then perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Stop and frisk, in my opinion, wouldn't be unconstitutional or bad as long as they are doing it to everyone. Similar to how they do car insurance check points.

Quote:Welcome to the libertarian party.

And give up my pinko commie status? LOL

Quote: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.

On this we can agree. I would rather live with my doors open and feel that breeze than to lock myself in a self inflicted fortress.

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

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.

I'm not asking anyone to take more responsibility for my safety than I do. I'm asking the opposite.

Leave me alone and everyone else that is just minding their own business. If you are walking down the street with drugs in your pocket, I don't have a problem with it. Live and let live.

(09-23-2016 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  DUI checkpoints and metal detectors have a legal basis on public safety. You don't see DUI checkpoints outside of times when there is an increased drunken driving risk. Football games and drinking holidays. Like I said only retards confuse law enforcement measures with public safety measures and fail to see the difference.

You admitted yourself that schools that have gang or violence issues have metal detectors. I suspect they also have far more liberal rules when it comes to checking students lockers and backpacks for drugs or other things.

You're contradicting yourself by arguing that 'dangerous' schools might become more intrusive on the students as a means of protecting them, but doing so serves no public safety purpose.

(09-23-2016 12:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Stop and frisk works wonders.

It's also BS constitutionally.

Pick your poison.

Perhaps. I think it could be done Constitutionally and apparently so does even the judge that banned it. He said they had to specify WHERE such searches were legal. Don't want to be frisked? Don't go there. I'd probably require some sort of time-frame on it... i.e. this area for this time, with a 're-certification' vote after then which would make it expire unless renewed... which gives the people SUBJECT to that jurisdiction the ability to end it (or extend it) and not some third party. I mean if it works and criminals leave, you can end it, right?

How is it any different than a deed restricted community? The people subject to the ordinance voted for it. That's generally ALWAYS going to be Constitutional

(09-23-2016 01:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The John0 decoder ring:

Retarded (his favorite), flawed = disagrees with John0
Right-wing = disagrees with Marx, Lenin, and Chairman Mao
Racist = continues to disagree

the cons have successfully normalized stupid on this forum. I try my best to teach them how they are wrong. when that fails I just point out how idiotic they are.

the only reason a con would have to post on this forum is if you choose to only live in a window where everyone else agrees with your viewpoints.