more of the 4th Amendment taken away

[Rune]

It's kind of amazing how people wring their hands about Stop and Frisk in NYC (btw: a misnomer since the paperwork involved is called "Stop, QUESTION, & Frisk)... and yet know nothing about Terry v. Ohio, a US Supreme Court decision nearly 50 years old.

The reason the NYPD directed that paperwork be prepared for each SQ&F is that NYC is a liberal city, and they wanted to ensure that no abuse of police authority, racial profiling, etc., was going on. The piece of paperwork involved was instituted shortly after Terry v. Ohio. A SQ&F encounter can be a stop, a questioning, or a frisking, or any combination of one or more. Another piece of misinformation is that every encounter involved a frisking. Most police departments do not track stops the way the NYPD does, and certainly none have the degree of oversight the NYPD does.

A brief history: The first search and seizure case did not get to the US Supreme Court until 1913. Prior to that, ANY search and seizure by law enforcement was considered reasonable and Constitutional. And even that 1913 decision only restricted FEDERAL law enforcement, it wasn't until decades later that restrictions were put in place against local law enforcement.

So when alleged conservatives align themselves with these decisions as "originalist".... it's a crock. Such a position would have to assume that the original intent of the 4th Amendment went ignored for over 100 years, until "originalists" like Hugo Black and Thurgood Marshall came along to recognize the original intent of the Constitution.

Idiotic.

As for NYC and the NYPD, they were not doing anything every other police department in the country does. The liberals targeted the NYPD for two reasons:

1. The Police Commissioner at the time was a favored candidate for the mayor's position

2. The paperwork prepared (and not done by most other police departments) made it convenient to distort statistics. In a neighborhood of 30,000 people, such as Bedford-Stuyvesant, where 98% of the population is minority, they could pull the reports and say "Gasp! 97% of the stops done in this neighborhood were of minorities!"

This is the truth, this is the law, this is what happened. But please, carry on with the liberal and faux conservative idiocy.

For a supposed resident of NYC you seem remarkably unaware of the NYPD's well deserved reputation for corruption.

You are a statist, a right wing authoritarian and a police apologist.

Go blow another badge wearing criminal, old white male. Your time is almost over.

 

[Taft2016]

For a supposed resident of NYC you seem remarkably unaware of the NYPD's well deserved reputation for corruption.

You are a statist, a right wing authoritarian and a police apologist.

Go blow another badge wearing criminal, old white male. Your time is almost over.

With about 35,000 uniformed members, corruption is nearly inevitable. However, the NYPD has 1000 uniformed members in its Internal Affairs Bureau. Massive safeguards are in place. Now if you're really concerned about corruption, Democrats in the NYC City Council, New York State Legislature, and New York State Senate have a much worse ratio of corruption convictions.

No, I'm not a statist. The practice is something the US Supreme Court OK'ed nearly 50 years ago. Domestic and international security are the two most legitimate functions of the state. The welfare state and the redistribution of wealth would probably rank among the least legitimate.

Meanwhile, do you have anything substantial and directly related to the issue to add? Or are you just going to keep running off onto tangents slinging insults?

 

[Rune]

With about 35,000 uniformed members, corruption is nearly inevitable. However, the NYPD has 1000 uniformed members in its Internal Affairs Bureau. Massive safeguards are in place. Now if you're really concerned about corruption, Democrats in the NYC City Council, New York State Legislature, and New York State Senate have a much worse ratio of corruption convictions.

No, I'm not a statist. The practice is something the US Supreme Court OK'ed nearly 50 years ago. Domestic and international security are the two most legitimate functions of the state. The welfare state and the redistribution of wealth would probably rank among the least legitimate.

Meanwhile, do you have anything substantial and directly related to the issue to add? Or are you just going to keep running off onto tangents slinging insults?

If you were black, you would object to stop and frisk. Since you are white and scared you support it.
Over and out.

 

[Taft2016]

If you were black, you would object to stop and frisk. Since you are white and scared you support it.
Over and out.

Again, Stop, QUESTION, and Frisk is nothing unique to NYC. It's done by every police department in the nation based on the US Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio.

There are a great many African American community leaders in the city who have applauded the efforts of the NYPD. The only black candidate in the mayoral election, Bill Thompson, actually came around late in the campaign and softened his stance on the issue, based upon the feedback he was getting from black community leaders.

Over the course of the past 20 years, there have been literally THOUSANDS of fewer homicides, predominantly in the black and minority neighborhoods. The NYPD has literally saved the lives of THOUSANDS of black and minority residents in their own neighborhoods.

Not my in neighborhood. In THEIR neighborhoods.

But of course, liberal Democrats need votes. If a few thousand innocent minorities need to die in needless street violence, so be it. The liberal Democrats will again present themselves as the friend of the minority and play upon the general malleable weak-minded nature of the Democrat voter. As always, Democrats will not be judged upon the actual results of their policies, only upon their good intentions.