more of the 4th Amendment taken away

That is a seriously awful exception to the 4th, but if you truly care about the 4th, where is your thread praising the New York Mayor DiBlasio for ending the illegal stop and frisk policy his city had been employing?

What was illegal about it?

Or, I should say, what is illegal about it? Because it's still being done.
 
I never made any claims about the intelligence of the framers. That's pure distraction on your part. The creation of the wording in the Constitution was a negotiation based on give and take. You had some that were for one right or another being added in the Constitution and some that were against it. That's why you have the dichotomy between say the 9th and the 10th which can be read to be inconsistent with each other. That's why you have the limiting phrase in the second amendment independent of the absolute phrase.

there is no limiting phrase in the second amendment other than shall not be infringed. that is the limiting phrase applied to the government.
 
people were being stopped when they had committed no crime. that is what was illegal about it.

Yeah, you might want to read something for a change. There's nothing illegal about that, it's done all over the country, not just New York City, and the US Supreme Court has approved it.
 
there is no limiting phrase in the second amendment other than shall not be infringed. that is the limiting phrase applied to the government.

A well regulated militia being necessary for the preservation of a free state...

That's what I was referring to as the limiting phrase.
 
Yeah, you might want to read something for a change. There's nothing illegal about that, it's done all over the country, not just New York City, and the US Supreme Court has approved it.

please cite your supreme court case that allows law enforcement to stop anyone, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever.
 
please cite your supreme court case that allows law enforcement to stop anyone, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever.

Moving the goalpost now?

Please point out where I said "anyone, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever."

Then we may continue the discussion.
 
Terry v. Ohio requires reasonable suspicion. In NYC they were not following that requirement.

Yes they were.

If not, any evidence obtained would have been inadmissable. Fruits of the poison tree they call it "counselor."

Why would the police department urge it's members to go out and seek out useless evidence?
 
Moving the goalpost now?

Please point out where I said "anyone, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever."

Then we may continue the discussion.
I said that they were stopping people who had committed no crime. YOU said that it was legal to do so and supreme court approved, using the wrong opinion I might add.
 
Moving the goalpost now?

Please point out where I said "anyone, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever."

Then we may continue the discussion.

See now you are playing ego games. NYC has changed its policy to require that police have RS before a stop and frisk encounter. This complies with Terry.
 
you are misusing this opinion to suit your purposes. the terry stop specifically states that the stop has to be an investigatory stop, meaning some reasonable suspicion and not just some random stop.

And you said stopping someone who has not committed a crime is illegal. It is not.
 
Yes they were.

If not, any evidence obtained would have been inadmissable. Fruits of the poison tree they call it "counselor."

Why would the police department urge it's members to go out and seek out useless evidence?
no, they were not. it's why they were forced to 'modify' their practices.
 
Back
Top