Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right

Taft2016

Taft2016

Verified User
This murderer was at large for months, leaving this entire neighborhood terrified.

If not for the Stop, Question, Frisk policy, this murderer would still be at large.

Not the liberals will ever admit it.

A law enforcement source said detectives zeroed in on the man after combing through stop and frisk reports from the neighborhoods near the scene of Vetrano’s killing.

The suspect was questioned last year after cops spotted him acting suspiciously in the area.
Click to expand...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ueens-jogger-karina-vetrano-article-1.2964411
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...lling-jogger-karina-vetrano-article-1.2964701

Then Lt. John Russo, who works in the Chief of Detectives office and also lives in Howard Beach, remembered something.

Russo had seen Lewis lurking around parked cars in Howard Beach in late May. Russo called 911, as did another resident who saw Lewis holding a crowbar and skulking around someone’s backyard. When patrol officers arrived, Lewis was gone. The following day, Russo spotted Lewis again, and cops arrived to question him.
Click to expand...
 
Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right
Click to expand...
a) The argument against Stop-&-Frisk was never that it wouldn't occasionally result in a valid arrest.

Instead the reasoning if far simpler and more logical. We don't want to live in a police State.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

b) That's why our Founders enshrined it in our 4th Amendment, article number four in our Bill of Rights:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #4: Ratified December 15, 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Certainly if we turned the U.S. into a totalitarian regime like North Korea, a few more criminals might be captured.

You think it's worth it?!

Well if you think so, why don't you move to North Korea where you'll be happy?
 
#7

a) Thanks for the perspective, & the link.

b) The proof that even supreme court rulings can be wrong is that our high court has even reversed itself. When a court takes both sides of an issue, how can it be right all the time?
 
sear said:
a) The argument against Stop-&-Frisk was never that it wouldn't occasionally result in a valid arrest.

Instead the reasoning if far simpler and more logical. We don't want to live in a police State.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

b) That's why our Founders enshrined it in our 4th Amendment, article number four in our Bill of Rights:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #4: Ratified December 15, 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Certainly if we turned the U.S. into a totalitarian regime like North Korea, a few more criminals might be captured.

You think it's worth it?!

Well if you think so, why don't you move to North Korea where you'll be happy?
Click to expand...

The pertinent word is 'unreasonable'.....open to interpretation.....
 
NOVA said:
The pertinent word is 'unreasonable'.....open to interpretation.....
Click to expand...

When I see a law-abiding, working American from the Bronx break down in tears on TV because he has been stopped & frisked over 100 times...I'd probably say that skirts the line of reasonableness.
 
1106TRUMPFRISK.jpeg

trump_t810.gif
''
cartoon-1(26).jpg


image.jpg
 
sear said:
a) The argument against Stop-&-Frisk was never that it wouldn't occasionally result in a valid arrest.

Instead the reasoning if far simpler and more logical. We don't want to live in a police State.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

b) That's why our Founders enshrined it in our 4th Amendment, article number four in our Bill of Rights:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #4: Ratified December 15, 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Certainly if we turned the U.S. into a totalitarian regime like North Korea, a few more criminals might be captured.

You think it's worth it?!

Well if you think so, why don't you move to North Korea where you'll be happy?
Click to expand...

Only the guilty worry about that outcome. ACA is legislation from a police state, where were you the?
 
sear said:
#7

a) Thanks for the perspective, & the link.

b) The proof that even supreme court rulings can be wrong is that our high court has even reversed itself. When a court takes both sides of an issue, how can it be right all the time?
Click to expand...

The police have been stopping, questioning, and frisking suspects since the nation's founding.

Terry put some Constitutional parameters on those searches which exist until today.

The Supreme Court never found issue with it, and the only court that did was quickly smacked down.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-yor...appeals-court-blocks-stop-and-frisk-1.6356324

A federal appeals court Thursday removed the judge who ordered reforms of the NYPD's controversial stop and frisk practices from the case in a ruling that generated legal and political shock waves by halting her plan for a judicial monitorship to oversee the police.

The three-judge Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin gave an appearance of bias by maneuvering to get the case and giving news interviews.
Click to expand...

Subsequent to this Mayor de Blasio chose not to fight the matter in court and instead admit the city had an improper practice. Which he did to avoid the embarrassment of the court ruling the practice was entirely Constitutional, which flew in the face of everything de Blasio had campaigned upon.

This is a perfect example of Mark Twain's axiom that "a lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on."
 
What leaps off of the page is that this story almost mirrors an example I had given years ago here:

Suppose at 3:00 a.m. you see someone walking down your block carrying a crowbar, going from car to car looking in the windows. You call the police who respond and do.... nothing. Because they can not stop him and can not question his about his suspicious behavior.

Fortunately Stop Question Frisk is still alive, and this murderer had been stopped with a crowbar long ago in the vicinity.
 
Taft2016 said:
What leaps off of the page is that this story almost mirrors an example I had given years ago here:

Suppose at 3:00 a.m. you see someone walking down your block carrying a crowbar, going from car to car looking in the windows. You call the police who respond and do.... nothing. Because they can not stop him and can not question his about his suspicious behavior.

Fortunately Stop Question Frisk is still alive, and this murderer had been stopped with a crowbar long ago in the vicinity.
Click to expand...

Liberals have turned most every city they run into cess pools due to their policies and refusal to believe that coddling these thugs and giving them "free stuff" will make them grateful and behave.

Can you say: "Chicago"?

I betcha' can...
 
Taft2016 said:
The police have been stopping, questioning, and frisking suspects since the nation's founding.

Terry put some Constitutional parameters on those searches which exist until today.

The Supreme Court never found issue with it, and the only court that did was quickly smacked down.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-yor...appeals-court-blocks-stop-and-frisk-1.6356324



Subsequent to this Mayor de Blasio chose not to fight the matter in court and instead admit the city had an improper practice. Which he did to avoid the embarrassment of the court ruling the practice was entirely Constitutional, which flew in the face of everything de Blasio had campaigned upon.

This is a perfect example of Mark Twain's axiom that "a lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on."
Click to expand...

Good old De Blasio. The answer to NYC's trip down the bowl. Herman Munster, minus the class.
 
Typical right-wing mouth foam.

One arrest and they're high fiving each other.

Just like they did when Dump took credit for saving some jobs via a deal that had already been made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top