Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right
- Thread starter Taft2016
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
If you followed the original thinking of the Founding Fathers then a negro was only worth 3/5 of a white man.
Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The police will always misuse any powers given to them, it's a law of nature.
Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
They don't stop and frisk white haired grannies, so you're OK.
Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
"Quote Originally Posted by NOVA View Post
The pertinent word is 'unreasonable'.....open to interpretation....." #20
Not according to Judge Wolfson it isn't.
According to Judge Wolfson in law, "reasonable" means, do you have a reason.
Two bored COPs drinking their freebee coffee, seeing two dark-skinned pedestrians pass by each carrying a sack with heavy contents; what reason would they have to suspect them?
Perhaps they're upgrading apartments.
Perhaps they're doing laundry.
Perhaps they're returning home from shopping.
If over the radio the COPs are informed, two dark-skinned persons just robbed a bank, is that "reason"?
The "Probable Cause" legal standard is fairly settled law in the U.S.
"Can you imagine how pissed you would be if they stopped and frisked you? White hot rage would be my guess." #20
Perhaps he doesn't know the protocol. Candidly, in 2017 neither do I.
But in the mid-1970's I did. And it included but was not limited to what essentially boiled down to fondling the suspect's genitals, to verify that no weapon:
- no revolver
- no Derringer
- no box-cutter
was hidden there.
I don't know about you. But I usually don't let a pretty little gal do that to me until the 3rd date.
The pertinent word is 'unreasonable'.....open to interpretation....." #20
Not according to Judge Wolfson it isn't.
According to Judge Wolfson in law, "reasonable" means, do you have a reason.
Two bored COPs drinking their freebee coffee, seeing two dark-skinned pedestrians pass by each carrying a sack with heavy contents; what reason would they have to suspect them?
Perhaps they're upgrading apartments.
Perhaps they're doing laundry.
Perhaps they're returning home from shopping.
If over the radio the COPs are informed, two dark-skinned persons just robbed a bank, is that "reason"?
The "Probable Cause" legal standard is fairly settled law in the U.S.
"Can you imagine how pissed you would be if they stopped and frisked you? White hot rage would be my guess." #20
Perhaps he doesn't know the protocol. Candidly, in 2017 neither do I.
But in the mid-1970's I did. And it included but was not limited to what essentially boiled down to fondling the suspect's genitals, to verify that no weapon:
- no revolver
- no Derringer
- no box-cutter
was hidden there.
I don't know about you. But I usually don't let a pretty little gal do that to me until the 3rd date.
PS
R #25
I'm w/ R on most of that.
A crowbar is not contraband.
And if it's brand new, and simply being carried home from the hardware store after being purchased, and the subject has the receipt, that's time / date stamped 14 minutes ago, I'd get the guy's name & address, and let him go; add it to the patrol report.
But if it a tool that obvious signs of heavy use, and has automobile paint embedded in its fissures, that gent & I would be headed to an interrogation room.
Looking into cars is a separate matter.
If it was done for personal safety, the way bicyclists do when riding in "the door zone", that's different than lingering with nose to glass to study the car's contents. The latter is by far the more suspicious behavior.
R #25
I'm w/ R on most of that.
A crowbar is not contraband.
And if it's brand new, and simply being carried home from the hardware store after being purchased, and the subject has the receipt, that's time / date stamped 14 minutes ago, I'd get the guy's name & address, and let him go; add it to the patrol report.
But if it a tool that obvious signs of heavy use, and has automobile paint embedded in its fissures, that gent & I would be headed to an interrogation room.
Looking into cars is a separate matter.
If it was done for personal safety, the way bicyclists do when riding in "the door zone", that's different than lingering with nose to glass to study the car's contents. The latter is by far the more suspicious behavior.
Wrong.
He said at 3:00 am.
A crowbar is known to police as a burglary tool.
Please stop trying to correct me.
You are not quite good enough for that.
Let me guess. It was a young black man.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is a false argument. 'stop, question, and frisk' requires reasonable suspicion. what you're advocating is, in fact, a police state.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
All they need to do is redefine what constitutes "reasonable suspicion", genius.
"Wrong.
He said at 3:00 am.
A crowbar is known to police as a burglary tool.
Please stop trying to correct me.
You are not quite good enough for that." #28
Where do I start !?!
Because you have done a global post dupe, I have no idea which particular factual assertion you find offensive.
a) Ah!
So I explicitly post my agreement with you: "I'm w/ R on most of that." And you declare in the very next post that I'm wrong.
Well here's point of logic 1stein.
If I agree with you, and I am wrong, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU ??
b) It always amuses me to encounter a personality that refuses to take "yes" for an answer. Most amusing! Thanks.
c) "He said at 3:00 am."
- I hadn't noticed.
- Even if so, so what? You think there's no store open around that time, in New York, New York, the city so nice they named it twice?
d) "A crowbar is known to police as a burglary tool."
- No matter how many times you state the hideously obvious, you'll never trick me into disagreeing.
- I NEVER asserted otherwise. Instead, I'll quote myself. "A crowbar is not contraband." sear
e) You're welcome to be more specific; to quote ONE SINGLE FACTUAL ASSERTION CONCISELY, and then expose it for the hideous flagrant fraud and lie that it obviously is.
But you're not likely to even though I'm deliberately trying to shame you into it here.
Your attitude is rather more one of a squabbler than a debater, a skillful conversationalist.
Unlike you, I vastly prefer the constructive approach; my reason for supporting most of what you posted, except for the rude ad hom at the end.
But that's fine cupcake. Thanks for playing.
He said at 3:00 am.
A crowbar is known to police as a burglary tool.
Please stop trying to correct me.
You are not quite good enough for that." #28
Where do I start !?!
Because you have done a global post dupe, I have no idea which particular factual assertion you find offensive.
a) Ah!
So I explicitly post my agreement with you: "I'm w/ R on most of that." And you declare in the very next post that I'm wrong.
Well here's point of logic 1stein.
If I agree with you, and I am wrong, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU ??
b) It always amuses me to encounter a personality that refuses to take "yes" for an answer. Most amusing! Thanks.
c) "He said at 3:00 am."
- I hadn't noticed.
- Even if so, so what? You think there's no store open around that time, in New York, New York, the city so nice they named it twice?
d) "A crowbar is known to police as a burglary tool."
- No matter how many times you state the hideously obvious, you'll never trick me into disagreeing.
- I NEVER asserted otherwise. Instead, I'll quote myself. "A crowbar is not contraband." sear
e) You're welcome to be more specific; to quote ONE SINGLE FACTUAL ASSERTION CONCISELY, and then expose it for the hideous flagrant fraud and lie that it obviously is.
But you're not likely to even though I'm deliberately trying to shame you into it here.
Your attitude is rather more one of a squabbler than a debater, a skillful conversationalist.
Unlike you, I vastly prefer the constructive approach; my reason for supporting most of what you posted, except for the rude ad hom at the end.
But that's fine cupcake. Thanks for playing.
Taft2016
Verified User
1. You don't even know what "probable cause" means. Probable cause means they can arrest him.
2. What is a crowbar probable cause of? That he has a flat tire? Unlawful possession of a crowbar?
3. I heard you got demoted to putting the labels on the sardine cans now. Is that true?
Taft2016
Verified User
I know what Stop, Question, and Frisk requires, and you had an iota of honesty you'd admit quite frankly that I was the one who explained it to you.
They had reasonable suspicion (as opposed to probable cause) to inquire what he was up to.
So you can stop with your "ZOMG! Police State!" nonsense.
T2 #33
I sincerely appreciate your constructive approach T2.
But let's clarify the scenario.
a) It's not merely possessing a crowbar. It's
- possessing a crowbar,
- at 3:AM, while
- looking into cars (lacking a scenario description) potentially "to case the joint".
b) A COP has to put the pieces together.
But all this may be taking us somewhat afield from:
Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right
If stop & frisk is so indispensable to law and order, why is it not merely federal law in the U.S., but the legal standard in all of the Western world?
I sincerely appreciate your constructive approach T2.
But let's clarify the scenario.
a) It's not merely possessing a crowbar. It's
- possessing a crowbar,
- at 3:AM, while
- looking into cars (lacking a scenario description) potentially "to case the joint".
b) A COP has to put the pieces together.
But all this may be taking us somewhat afield from:
Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right
If stop & frisk is so indispensable to law and order, why is it not merely federal law in the U.S., but the legal standard in all of the Western world?
PS
"1. You don't even know what "probable cause" means." T2 #33
The term you have in quotation marks, "probable cause", comes straight from our Constitution's 4th Amendment.
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.
"Probable cause means they can arrest him." T2 #33
Yes.
But it ALSO applies to property searches including smart-phone and computer searches, tossing residences, cars, out-buildings, and iirc even hotel rooms; along with bank account records, credit card records, etc.
"1. You don't even know what "probable cause" means." T2 #33
The term you have in quotation marks, "probable cause", comes straight from our Constitution's 4th Amendment.
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.
"Probable cause means they can arrest him." T2 #33
Yes.
But it ALSO applies to property searches including smart-phone and computer searches, tossing residences, cars, out-buildings, and iirc even hotel rooms; along with bank account records, credit card records, etc.
Taft2016
Verified User
You might be conflating two things.
The scenario above is the one I gave several years back to show that SQF is a necessary law enforcement tool. In the above scenario SQF is the only thing the police would be able to do, as no crime had yet been committed. You take away SQF and all they could do is roll up, say, "Yeah, there he is," and drive away. A conclusion I don't think anybody would find satisfactory.
However, that is not the crowbar scenario with this murderer.
"You might be conflating two things." T2
Comparing or contrasting perhaps. "Conflating"? Not to my knowledge.
"The scenario above is the one I gave several years back to show that SQF is a necessary law enforcement tool. In the above scenario SQF is the only thing the police would be able to do, as no crime had yet been committed. You take away SQF and all they could do is roll up, say, "Yeah, there he is," and drive away. A conclusion I don't think anybody would find satisfactory."
SQF imparts no supernatural powers.
If a citizen is simply strolling along on the sidewalk at 3:AM carrying a crowbar, glancing into windows occasionally, SQF isn't going to solve who assassinated JFK.
It's ABSOLUTELY possible to SQF a subject, and find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING more to investigate, arrest, confiscate, or whine about.
OF COURSE it could go the other way. But it will not necessarily in all cases.
And this thread is premised on the notion that Saint Trump and his right wing radical police preferences are PROVED correct, based upon a single anecdote is simply ignorant.
Such issues are to be settled by statistical standards, and standards of law, and not on a single arrest, decades into a controversial police protocol.
Comparing or contrasting perhaps. "Conflating"? Not to my knowledge.
"The scenario above is the one I gave several years back to show that SQF is a necessary law enforcement tool. In the above scenario SQF is the only thing the police would be able to do, as no crime had yet been committed. You take away SQF and all they could do is roll up, say, "Yeah, there he is," and drive away. A conclusion I don't think anybody would find satisfactory."
SQF imparts no supernatural powers.
If a citizen is simply strolling along on the sidewalk at 3:AM carrying a crowbar, glancing into windows occasionally, SQF isn't going to solve who assassinated JFK.
It's ABSOLUTELY possible to SQF a subject, and find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING more to investigate, arrest, confiscate, or whine about.
OF COURSE it could go the other way. But it will not necessarily in all cases.
And this thread is premised on the notion that Saint Trump and his right wing radical police preferences are PROVED correct, based upon a single anecdote is simply ignorant.
Such issues are to be settled by statistical standards, and standards of law, and not on a single arrest, decades into a controversial police protocol.
Taft2016
Verified User
Ummmm, what?
I started out pointing out that a crowbar SQF led to a murder arrest, and how I used a crowbar example several years ago to justify SQF.
In this case in today's news story, yes, SQF DID SOLVE A MURDER. Not JFK's, but somebody who was loved by her family
That's why I mentioned it.
Perhaps you're not conflating, but didn't realize there were two different things being discussed?
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
really? so do you believe that they should redefine 'reasonable suspicion' to a point that everything is illegal and someone can be stopped for anything? For instance, 3 years ago the florida highway patrol started instituting drivers license checkpoints because driving without a license is illegal, therefore they have reasonable suspicion that anyone driving COULD be driving without a license. Is that reasonable?