Yes. Like the premise of the case and how Trump is implying to use it.

 

This is garbage spin. Trump was talking about what he thought Chicago police should do. The president can't "use it" and can't enable it.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

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.

Have you ever actually been to Chicago? Just wondering.

---

yeh, statistics smatistics...  It's about really being there right?

---

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.

I know reading isn't your strong suit but here.. <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1'>https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1</a>

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

yeh, statistics smatistics...  It's about really being there right?

Well, no, statistics are important and tell an important story. I just wanted to point out how full of Gus your "waking up in Afghanistan" comparison is.

---

This is garbage spin. Trump was talking about what he thought Chicago police should do. The president can't "use it" and can't enable it.

Cops stopping and searching people without probable cause is a violation of their rights. Unless they are in the act of committing a crime or suspected of having just committed a crime there is no probable cause. Trump is not implying all law enforcement do this everywhere. He is being specific to areas with higher crime rates. So in areas where cops are already distrusted, cops are going to stop anyone for whatever reason they claim to search them. That is a totalitarian police state. That is not a constitutional government where citizens have an expectation of civil rights. Blacks and Hispanics would be specifically targeted. I promise you.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I know reading isn't your strong suit but here.. <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1'>https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1</a>

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

Anything else?

---

Well, no, statistics are important and tell an important story. I just wanted to point out how full of Gus your "waking up in Afghanistan" comparison is.

Casualties in Chicago vs. Casualties in Afghanistan.

---

On YouTube there are plenty of funny videos from NY after stop and frisk was implemented. I HIGHLY recommend you all spend a few minutes watching them. It is all about an unlawful search and seizure and it gave cops free turn to hassle minorities and foreigners.


Never happened to me, but I have a multi - millionaire friend who was detained for about 1 hour for "looking like he had a suspicious package" which was a ham from the Honey Baked Ham company. I believe he took the video down unfortunately.

---

Cops stopping and searching people without probable cause is a violation of their rights. Unless they are in the act of committing a crime or suspected of having just committed a crime there is no probable cause. Trump is not implying all law enforcement do this everywhere. He is being specific to areas with higher crime rates. So in areas where cops are already distrusted, cops are going to stop anyone for whatever reason they claim to search them. That is a totalitarian police state. That is not a constitutional government where citizens have an expectation of civil rights. Blacks and Hispanics would be specifically targeted. I promise you.

 

I agree that it's a police state, and disapprove of the policy. "Totalitarian" is going way overboard.


But this is local policy, not federal policy. It would make no difference whether Hillary or Trump were to be president.


 

At most the choice of one of the nine ruling elite would make some difference, but as JJ pointed out, it was the liberal Warren court that OK'ed stop and search. A conservative originalist court would not allow it.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with 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. 

 

 

The problem though is it creates mistrust between the police and the community.  You can post stats for why it works logically, but society is extremely complex and ultimately, it will lead to a negative result.

---

Feelings vs. Lives...

---

Anything else?

At least I see where you stopped reading. This case did a lot to define the boundaries of the law.


So any cop can claim the belief they or others are in danger and can place their hands on citizens. How do you see this enhanced focus in high crime areas like Chicago playing out? Do you see the risk of average citizens having their rights violated by the other sections you didn't cite?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I agree that it's a police state, and disapprove of the policy. "Totalitarian" is going way overboard.


But this is local policy, not federal policy. It would make no difference whether Hillary or Trump were to be president.


At most the choice of one of the nine ruling elite would make some difference, but as JJ pointed out, it was the liberal Warren court that OK'ed stop and search. A conservative originalist court would not allow it.

There are certain conditions which apply to this law. What is being proposed seems to be seeking out any opportunity to claim those conditions exist. That does not promote an environment where people feel their rights are being respected. That is fishing for bad guys.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

At least I see where you stopped reading. This case did a lot to define the boundaries of the law.


So any cop can claim the belief they or others are in danger and can place their hands on citizens. How do you see this enhanced focus in high crime areas like Chicago playing out? Do you see the risk of average citizens having their rights violated by the other sections you didn't cite?

 

 

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.

anything else?

---

Feelings vs. Lives...

Excuses for tyranny vs right of the People.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

anything else?

How do you encourage reasonable suspicion? How is encouraging reasonable suspicion different than entrapment?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

How do you encourage reasonable suspicion? How is encouraging reasonable suspicion different than entrapment?

 

It was brought up in relation to illegal mexicans...So I wouldn't want to look remotely Mexican walking the street in a Trump presidency.

---

Excuses for tyranny vs right of the People.

 

hey listen you...

---

How do you encourage reasonable suspicion? How is encouraging reasonable suspicion different than entrapment?

 

 

If a police officer sees two punks about to rob a store stops them and frisks them and finds a gun, then that's a public service not a crime.  The scope of a frisk is limited, the scope of reasonable suspicion is narrow and subject to oversight. 

 

I also find it Ironic that the mayor who put it into hyperdrive and caused the escalation that so many fear and loathe was on stage at the democratic convention and no one from the Hillary camp seems to mind. 

---