Rich, the police in Texas can kick your door in and detain your entire family if they were to stroll by (fat chance!) and smell reefer.
Would you acknowledge that as just a consequence of your willingness to break the law?
Thank you for bringing this up.
I wanted to make a point about who the police target.
The important thing to remember is that the police would not, could not, kick in a door and detain an entire family in a well neighborhood, if they were to stroll by and smell reefer.
I would argue they can not use those tactics in well off neighborhoods.
The reason police can use those tactics is because they are careful only to use them in poor/minority communities.
The public and courts would put an end to these tactics in a hurry if they were extended to well off white suburbs.
Seems that if someone runs from Police they certainly have cause to frisk him.
Not under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution they don't.
They need a reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commmit a crime in order to lawfully to detain that person.
Running from the police does not meet that criteria.
To frisk, they need a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person is armed with a weapon,
I'll say it again.
Taser are meant as an alternative to deadly force.
That means they are only to be used in the same situations where deadly force is justified.
Seems that if someone runs from Police they certainly have cause to frisk him.
Not under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution they don't.
They need a reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commmit a crime in order to lawfully to detain that person.
Running from the police does not meet that criteria.
To frisk, they need a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person is armed with a weapon,
This is why Stop and Frisk is a joke.
What am I not understanding about this?
What exactly is Reasonable Suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person.
What is a Stop?
What constitutes a stop and frisk? Can one be stopped and not frisked? Or does one action always follow another? A stop is a seizure of a person. There are two types of stops: (1.) a show of force and (2.) a show of authority. With a show of force, an officer must physically lay hands on the person with the intent of detaining them. In a show of authority, the officer's look, demeanor, and display of authority persuades a person to submit to authority. The key element in this type of stop is that the individual must submit to the show of authority, believe they have been seized, and feel compelled to cooperate.
A Justified Stop
A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:
Appears not to fit the time or place.
Matches the description on a "Wanted" flyer.
Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
Loitering, or looking for something. Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
Present in a crime scene area.
Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).
Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person.
They're doing Stop and Frisk without reasonable suspicion. Therefore they don't get to probable cause.
And the whole thing about Stop and Frisk is that it involves a Frisk, which IS a search of the person without an arrest. It's basically one big fishing expedition that amounts to systematic racial harassment by the NYPD.
A federal judge ordered Monday that the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy be altered, finding that it violates the Constitution in part by unlawfully targeting blacks and Latinos.
But city officials bristled at the contention that police racially profile suspects, and vowed to appeal the ruling, contending the policy has cut crime.
"You're not going to see a change in tactics overnight," Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters Monday, saying it would take time to implement the judge's changes even if an appellate court doesn't temporarily halt it.
Asked if he hopes an appeal will delay the order until he leaves office next year, Bloomberg said: "Boy, I hope so, because I wouldn't want to be responsible for a lot of people dying."
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruling on a class-action lawsuit, wrote that the policy violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches, finding that police made at least 200,000 stops from 2004 to June 2012 without reasonable suspicion.
She also found evidence of racial profiling, violating plaintiffs' 14th Amendment rights guaranteeing equal protection.
The police department had said that the policy -- in which police stop, question and frisk people they considered suspicious -- is used to deter crime.
"The city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner," Scheindlin wrote. "In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting 'the right people' is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution."
Same thing at the Sammy Yatim shooting protest yesterday.
I absolutely hate this shit. It's so juvenile. You think this type of antic addresses what mothers with dead sons are going through? It undermines and trivializes. Easy for these Archies and Jugheads and their rebellious mop of hair and sunglasses to hide behind an insult while there are people from targeted communities trying to be taken seriously and work for actual change.
I'm sorry Bassie, but without knowing what the demo is about, this is an amazing image. The cop far left seems transfixed by the doughnut!
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Yes, making fun of the subject at hand has never ever been a part of political protest. How dare those "trustfunders" stop shopping for themselves long enough to take action.
Having been at many of these type of memorials/demonstrations/mass actions, I have no respect for protesters who taunt police and no respect for protesters who hide their faces.
I tried to think of one movement from history that hid their identity*. I could think of none.
If you are afraid to speak out, stay home.
*When I lived in Syracuse NY in the late 80s (Yes the 1980s) many people who marched in the gay pride parade wore paper bags over their heads.
In part because they were likely to lose their job/housing if they came out. And in part as a protest of out people losing their jobs/housing.
Seems hard to believe today, but that's the way it was.
Having been at many of these type of memorials/demonstrations/mass actions, I have no respect for protesters who taunt police and no respect for protesters who hide their faces.
I tried to think of one movement from history that hid their identity*. I could think of none.
If you are afraid to speak out, stay home.
*When I lived in Syracuse NY in the late 80s (Yes the 1980s) many people who marched in the gay pride parade wore paper bags over their heads.
In part because they were likely to lose their job/housing if they came out. And in part as a protest of out people losing their jobs/housing.
Seems hard to believe today, but that's the way it was.
Your posts continue to baffle the shit out of me. You contradict yourself constantly, just like you do here. You can't think of any movements where people hid their identity, which is bizarre enough because it's been about as uncommon as cloudy days, and then you give an example of just such an occurrence.
Of course you could have just thought about it for a minute or googled "masked protesters" and found examples galore, but that might involve making a cursory effort to know what you're talking about, and you seem to be allergic to that approach.
Comments
holder/Obama/nsa tell the truth 100% of the time
lmj-o-logic
You're babbling again in your usual illiterate fashion.
You were born stupid and you've spent your entire life perfecting that "skill." I just hope you don't breed.
Good. Keep it that way. Get surgery if it helps.
Thank you for bringing this up.
I wanted to make a point about who the police target.
The important thing to remember is that the police would not, could not, kick in a door and detain an entire family in a well neighborhood, if they were to stroll by and smell reefer.
I would argue they can not use those tactics in well off neighborhoods.
The reason police can use those tactics is because they are careful only to use them in poor/minority communities.
The public and courts would put an end to these tactics in a hurry if they were extended to well off white suburbs.
Not under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution they don't.
They need a reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commmit a crime in order to lawfully to detain that person.
Running from the police does not meet that criteria.
To frisk, they need a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person is armed with a weapon,
This is why Stop and Frisk is a joke.
Maybe she was big for her age. Maybe she lurched. Maybe the cop had to pay for his doughnuts that morning and was righteously pissed.
The disgrace is how long Stop and Frisk was allowed to go on.
You can bet your collections that if it had been Wall Street bankers being stopped and humiliated it would have ended very quickly.
There is a thought. Like going to war without raising taxes.
Seriously. How does that person live with themselves???
I think I'm gonna stay off the interwebs for a while... this is seriously depressing.
None of them seem to have any regrets, ever.
Tasing a woman who is 8 months pregnant because she doesn't want to lay face down on the ground:
Taser are meant as an alternative to deadly force.
That means they are only to be used in the same situations where deadly force is justified.
11yo girl? 8 months pregnant?
Yet rarely is anyone held accountable.
It's even more of a disgrace that it's still going on.
The Federal judge should have slapped an injunction on that mofo.
Hell yes.
What am I not understanding about this?
What exactly is Reasonable Suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person.
What is a Stop?
What constitutes a stop and frisk? Can one be stopped and not frisked? Or does one action always follow another? A stop is a seizure of a person. There are two types of stops: (1.) a show of force and (2.) a show of authority. With a show of force, an officer must physically lay hands on the person with the intent of detaining them. In a show of authority, the officer's look, demeanor, and display of authority persuades a person to submit to authority. The key element in this type of stop is that the individual must submit to the show of authority, believe they have been seized, and feel compelled to cooperate.
A Justified Stop
A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:
Appears not to fit the time or place.
Matches the description on a "Wanted" flyer.
Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
Loitering, or looking for something.
Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
Present in a crime scene area.
Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).
LOL
black guy in a white neighborhood? have a field day!
They're doing Stop and Frisk without reasonable suspicion. Therefore they don't get to probable cause.
And the whole thing about Stop and Frisk is that it involves a Frisk, which IS a search of the person without an arrest. It's basically one big fishing expedition that amounts to systematic racial harassment by the NYPD.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/
Same thing at the Sammy Yatim shooting protest yesterday.
I absolutely hate this shit. It's so juvenile. You think this type of antic addresses what mothers with dead sons are going through? It undermines and trivializes. Easy for these Archies and Jugheads and their rebellious mop of hair and sunglasses to hide behind an insult while there are people from targeted communities trying to be taken seriously and work for actual change.
i've been strongly considering moving to the cottage lately.
I'm sorry Bassie, but without knowing what the demo is about, this is an amazing image. The cop far left seems transfixed by the doughnut!
I tried to think of one movement from history that hid their identity*. I could think of none.
If you are afraid to speak out, stay home.
*When I lived in Syracuse NY in the late 80s (Yes the 1980s) many people who marched in the gay pride parade wore paper bags over their heads.
In part because they were likely to lose their job/housing if they came out. And in part as a protest of out people losing their jobs/housing.
Seems hard to believe today, but that's the way it was.
Your posts continue to baffle the shit out of me. You contradict yourself constantly, just like you do here. You can't think of any movements where people hid their identity, which is bizarre enough because it's been about as uncommon as cloudy days, and then you give an example of just such an occurrence.
Of course you could have just thought about it for a minute or googled "masked protesters" and found examples galore, but that might involve making a cursory effort to know what you're talking about, and you seem to be allergic to that approach.
Just bizarre.