“Basically, they will, if they see — you know, they are proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person, and they will look, and they will take the gun away,” said Hillary Clinton.
Oh wait, sorry. That was Trump.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...g-stop-and
Curious as to what our strong second amendment supporters think of this. Even if it is, supposedly, only for Chicago.
What does this have to do with 2A? If anything, it is 4A.
Nothing... Its amazing how people try and make arguments purely by twisting words.
I would assume he's referring to people who are not permitted to be carrying firearms when he's saying this in the context of stop and frisk. I'm also fairly certain that POTUS doesn't have the constitutional authority to institute national stop and frisk laws, although if there was a way to use it as a gun grab, I'm sure King Obama would be all over it.
Quote:Nothing... Its amazing how people try and make arguments purely by twisting words.
Look at who they're supporting. It's all they can do to make sure people aren't paying attention to their dreamboat in a pantsuit.
Quote:“Basically, they will, if they see — you know, they are proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person, and they will look, and they will take the gun away,” said Hillary Clinton.
Oh wait, sorry. That was Trump.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...g-stop-and
Curious as to what our strong second amendment supporters think of this. Even if it is, supposedly, only for Chicago.
Well in the context of the article that you linked, I agree with him (Trump). Anyone with a CCP that is carrying would know to inform the officer that he/she was carrying while presenting ID and documentation.
He was specifically talking about Chicago which happens to have a large number of homicides as well as some of the most strict gun laws.
Huge problem with anyone suggesting stop and frisk 100% opposed to it. You want to end the violence in Chicago end the ban on citizens being able to legally protect themselves. Just another example of how trump misses the mark on so many levels, the problem is government the solution can't be more of it.
The concept of stop and frisk in and of itself isn't antithetical to the constitution or the second amendment.
1.) The numbers don't lie. NY dropped 80% in murder rates. That translates to tens of thousands of lives. That kind of difference can't be ignored.
2.) Stop Frisk and question can be directly carried over to states that have conceal carry or even open carry laws. Responsible gun owners have their documentation and permits to carry with them. The purpose of the tactic is to allow Officers to use their reasonable discretion to engage people they believe to be suspicious in questioning after a frisk to protect the officer or to detect contraband.
Proactive policing in certain high crime areas can make sense. The role of the state is to protect its citizens. I agree with you that the state should allow citizens to carry, that's not in opposition to the idea that if a cop has a reasonable suspicion that someone is up to no good that he should be able to engage that person to ensure the public safety.
Quote:The concept of stop and frisk in and of itself isn't antithetical to the constitution or the second amendment.
1.) The numbers don't lie. NY dropped 80% in murder rates. That translates to tens of thousands of lives. That kind of difference can't be ignored.
2.) Stop Frisk and question can be directly carried over to states that have conceal carry or even open carry laws. Responsible gun owners have their documentation and permits to carry with them. The purpose of the tactic is to allow Officers to use their reasonable discretion to engage people they believe to be suspicious in questioning after a frisk to protect the officer or to detect contraband.
Proactive policing in certain high crime areas can make sense. The role of the state is to protect its citizens. I agree with you that the state should allow citizens to carry, that's not in opposition to the idea that if a cop has a reasonable suspicion that someone is up to no good that he should be able to engage that person to ensure the public safety.
Nope nope nope, forget the why and look at the how. The policy of stop and frisk has nothing to do with probable cause. There has always been a precedent that an officer can search under probable cause the stop and frisk took it to another level with suspension.
In places like New York and Chicago no one is allowed to carry a gun, so stop frisk and confiscate is just another gun grab. It doesn't work you keep saying 80% reduction but stats are so eaisly manipulated. I believe in consistency the solution isn't more government checkpoints, the solution is to remove the walking target off innocents backs and take down the gangs. Which is a whole different issue caused by more government programs like the war on drugs.
Quote:Nope nope nope, forget the why and look at the how. The policy of stop and frisk has nothing to do with probable cause. There has always been a precedent that an officer can search under probable cause the stop and frisk took it to another level with suspension.
In places like New York and Chicago no one is allowed to carry a gun, so stop frisk and confiscate is just another gun grab. It doesn't work you keep saying 80% reduction but stats are so eaisly manipulated. I believe in consistency the solution isn't more government checkpoints, the solution is to remove the walking target off innocents backs and take down the gangs. Which is a whole different issue caused by more government programs like the war on drugs.
The criteria set forth through the 4th amendment is reasonable searches and seizures, with stop and frisk you have to have a reasonable suspicion.
You can say what you want, its not synonymous with anti-gun laws. If you are in a state that allows open carry or conceal carry you should have your permit anyway.
As for manipulating statistics, when you go from 2500 murders a year, to 500 murders a year you can't simply bury your head in the sand and say that someone was COOKING THE BOOKS.
If a police officer, through their experience and training can identify a potential threat through reasonable suspicion then they should be able to engage that individual for basic questioning and a general pat down.
Quote:The criteria set forth through the 4th amendment is reasonable searches and seizures, with stop and frisk you have to have a reasonable suspicion.
You can say what you want, its not synonymous with anti-gun laws. If you are in a state that allows open carry or conceal carry you should have your permit anyway.
As for manipulating statistics, when you go from 2500 murders a year, to 500 murders a year you can't simply bury your head in the sand and say that someone was COOKING THE BOOKS.
If a police officer, through their experience and training can identify a potential threat through reasonable suspicion then they should be able to engage that individual for basic questioning and a general pat down.
open carry doesn't require a permit, that's the point of open carry. Face it the states enforcing stop and frisk tactics don't have legal ownership of guns, so yes it is directly synonymous with anti-gun laws. It's a belief that instead of the individual being responsible and able to defend themselves the state should stop and frisk everyone they come in contact with to prevent possible crime. Yes murder statistics are also manipulated easily, I don't have the time nor do I care to look into New York's specific murder statistics before and after.
this is always my problem with conservatives, control the state, less government, until I want more of it.
Quote:The criteria set forth through the 4th amendment is reasonable searches and seizures, with stop and frisk you have to have a reasonable suspicion.
You can say what you want, its not synonymous with anti-gun laws. If you are in a state that allows open carry or conceal carry you should have your permit anyway.
As for manipulating statistics, when you go from 2500 murders a year, to 500 murders a year you can't simply bury your head in the sand and say that someone was COOKING THE BOOKS.
If a police officer, through their experience and training can identify a potential threat through reasonable suspicion then they should be able to engage that individual for basic questioning and a general pat down.
I think you're advocating a police state. What is "reasonable suspicion"? Is that entirely up to the police officer? You mean any cop can stop and frisk me for no reason other than the imaginings of his or her own mind?
I dont agree with the idea, but now that he said it you're going to find his critics everywhere suddenly act like they are NRA members.
Quote:What does this have to do with 2A? If anything, it is 4A.
Any time a person employed by city, county, state, or the federal government takes a private citizen's gun away arbitrarily, the 2nd amendment is involved.
As you know, any time a person is singled out for frisking without probable cause, the person's 4th amendment rights are violated.
Any time a person is singled out for frisking and the "probable cause" is that the person is black or brown, that person's 14th amendment rights are violated.
This is only the start. Under King Donald, ALL of our rights will eventually be suspended.
Stop and frisk is the same thing as search and seizure. All a cop needs to do is say someone looked suspicious to search them which is a violation of the 4th amendment and the need for probable cause. I can only assume Trump would implement such practices in a disproportionate subset of the population. You wouldn't see such practices regularly employed anywhere there ISN'T an above average crime rate. That is not outreach to struggling communities. That is enacting a police state through totalitarianism. It is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court already ruled on this (8-1 - Terry v. Ohio). This would violate average citizens rights and promote a sense of distrust among citizens and police officers where there are already obvious fractions.
Quote:What does this have to do with 2A? If anything, it is 4A.
It's kinda both. No probable cause to search in the first place, and certainly no probable cause to seize.
Quote:The concept of stop and frisk in and of itself isn't antithetical to the constitution
Actually, yes, it is. The concept of detaining someone and subjecting them to an unlawful examination of their person and property without them being granted the right to refuse (say no to a stop and frisk; see what happens) is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, and you could easily draw Two and Five in as well.
Quote:The criteria set forth through the 4th amendment is reasonable searches and seizures, with stop and frisk you have to have a reasonable suspicion.
"Reasonable suspicion" is not a thing. It does not exist. Look at the Constitution and please tell me where it says "reasonable suspicion" in the Fourth Amendment. Here's a hint: it doesn't. The concepts of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are worlds apart, one requiring that the law enforcement official believe that a crime either will be or currently is being committed by the person in question, and the other being so broad that you could paint Moby Dick black in one stroke. The Fourth Amendment says "unreasonable" searches and seizures, not "reasonable". It places the onus on the government to prove that there was a clear and present need to conduct that search. Stop-and-frisk is based solely upon profiling and/or random pulls. There is no probable cause attached to it, and the whole practice is a violation of at least the Fourth Amendment, possibly more depending on the outcome of the unlawful, warrantless search.
Quote:Stop and frisk is the same thing as search and seizure. All a cop needs to do is say someone looked suspicious to search them which is a violation of the 4th amendment and the need for probable cause. I can only assume Trump would implement such practices in a disproportionate subset of the population. You wouldn't see such practices regularly employed anywhere there ISN'T an above average crime rate. That is not outreach to struggling communities. That is enacting a police state through totalitarianism. It is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court already ruled on this (8-1 - Terry v. Ohio). This would violate average citizens rights and promote a sense of distrust among citizens and police officers where there are already obvious fractions.
Quote:<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family
ans-serif;"><i><b>Terry v. Ohio</b></i>, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."<sup>[1]</sup>
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons' title="Weapons">weapons</a> if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "<i>Terry</i> frisk". The <i>Terry</i> standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;"> "Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime."
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family
ans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family
ans-serif;">Did i miss something?
Yes. Like the premise of the case and how Trump is implying to use it.
Quote:It's kinda both. No probable cause to search in the first place, and certainly no probable cause to seize.
Actually, yes, it is. The concept of detaining someone and subjecting them to an unlawful examination of their person and property without them being granted the right to refuse (say no to a stop and frisk; see what happens) is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, and you could easily draw Two and Five in as well.
"Reasonable suspicion" is not a thing. It does not exist. Look at the Constitution and please tell me where it says "reasonable suspicion" in the Fourth Amendment. Here's a hint: it doesn't. The concepts of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are worlds apart, one requiring that the law enforcement official believe that a crime either will be or currently is being committed by the person in question, and the other being so broad that you could paint Moby [BAD WORD REMOVED] black in one stroke. The Fourth Amendment says "unreasonable" searches and seizures, not "reasonable". It places the onus on the government to prove that there was a clear and present need to conduct that search. Stop-and-frisk is based solely upon profiling and/or random pulls. There is no probable cause attached to it, and the whole practice is a violation of at least the Fourth Amendment, possibly more depending on the outcome of the unlawful, warrantless search.
The term Reasonable suspicion does mean something. It means based on articulable facts and reasonable inferences an officer can stop you for questioning, frisk the outer garments of your clothing solely to determine if you have a weapon for his protection and the protection of the public at large and then question you about the suspicious behavior.
The officer in question would still have to show cause for his "stop and frisk". It is explicit in the "Terry standard" that the state cannot rely solely on the "good faith, or hunch" of a police officer.
This is when an officer, based on his training and expertise as a law enforcement agent, makes a judgement that a set of behaviors may reasonably lend itself to the commission of a crime or a danger to himself or the public at large. The scope of the "Frisk" is limited to the detection of weapons by a patting of the outer clothing, not a general search for contraband or other evidentiary material.
If it is shown that a police department is using said procedure in the absence of reasonable suspicion and infringing on the rights of a population or specific ethnic group then the program can be shut down.
Moreover, Trump can encourage this practice, but he isn't in a position to mandate it's use in every police precinct accross the country.
I think that when you look at a place like Chicago its something that you have to consider. This is a situation where just waking up in the morning puts you in the same relative danger as the kid waking up in Afghanistan. If there is a method of aggressive policing that can save 80% of the lives being lost every year in places like that then you would have to make one heck of an argument against its implementation.
Quote:Yes. Like the premise of the case and how Trump is implying to use it.
what do you mean? I just posted the holding decision that in certain cases the use of reasonable suspicion to justify "Stop and Frisk" is constitutional. And last time i checked, the Warren Court wasn't exactly a branch of the Heritage foundation. Rudy Giuliani gave a detailed breakdown of the same legal rationale as expressed in the holding decision above. What's this IMPLICATION that you are so worried about?
It's amazing. Trump says "The sky is blue" and you have some people jumping on him for not using the term Light blue... Trump says 2 + 2 is 4 "Well he didn't really mean that... he's to stupid to get it right someone must have written that for him" or the like.