Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right

"SQF, despite its many misrepresentations, was never about randomly stopping and searching people."

If by "randomly" you mean in the mathematical / statistical sense, I'm not sure that's the issue.

The implication is that profiling is used.

" so why would any police department want that? " #118

a) Because it's off the street, out of circulation where it might otherwise cause harm to the public. That includes:

- guns
- illegal drugs that might be sold to minors
- invasive, or endangered species
- classified information
- proceeds of theft
 
Rune said:
The fourth clarfiess probable cause to search without a warrant, something NYCP brass like yourself should be intimately aware of.
Your example is wrong, you suck.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the 4th requires probable cause to get a warrant to do a search, which is a different circumstance than probable cause to arrest.
 
Micawber said:
If you NJ think I read all your posts you may suffer the same ailment as your idiot in chief. I read the OP and respond or whatever I happen upon. Your OP clearly credited the Combover- in- chief with apprehending an infamous rapist, and but for liberals he would have skated. If you knew anything about the case you posted, you would have known it was a Warren Court decision and that it is and has been the law of the land since 1968, and not to be credited the grand cuck cheeto, but rather you would have refrained from starting the stupid thread and its posit, imbecile. I have lint in my belly button that knows more constitutional law than you, your mother and the horse she rode in on combined. You are on notice.

Try again, fool.
Click to expand...

I didn't credit the President, who was probably still in school when the decision was rendered.

If you read that as my intent, you're borderline illiterate.

Do you think everyone who supports SQF served on the SCOTUS?
 
T2 #122

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.
Click to expand...
 
T2 #122

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.
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
nobody knew it was your wifes, it's everyones obligation to stop crime, the ends justify the means. one less laptop thief in the world.

hero.
Click to expand...

So the police can't stop people, but you can, and then murder them based on your mistaken assumptions....

Got it.
 
The police authority of untrained, non-police citizens is notoriously limited.

There is for example: "citizen's arrest".

But lawyers and law judges flinch and shrink at the near mention of it.

In New York for example, a passerby seeing a citizen in emergency need, perhaps laying on the ground convulsing for example, is not required to lend assistance.

BUT !!

We have a "Good Sam" law. If such passerby makes an effort to assist, and it goes South, that good samaritan is not held legally liable. I assume it's more complicated than that. That's the basic.

Civilian police powers?

What can one unarmed, untrained citizen do to assist in a police emergency? Close a road if the bridge washes out?
 
Taft2016 said:
Wrong, the 4th requires probable cause to get a warrant to do a search, which is a different circumstance than probable cause to arrest.
Click to expand...


Wrong, if you are contending the 4th does not also require the warrant for a seizure of a person. Read the amendment. As we all know the case exceptions are so many they nearly eviscerate the rule, but the fact remains the 4th does in fact require a warrant for a seizure of a person under oath issued by a neutral. Sure if you see dope on my lap at a traffic stop you can arrest on the spot and search the car, but now we are speaking of exceptions. If I'm a mass murderer and just walking down the street eating an apple, you'll want a warrant in hand before giving me the baby seal treatment.
 
Micawber said:
Wrong, if you are contending the 4th does not also require the warrant for a seizure of a person. Read the amendment. As we all know the case exceptions are so many they nearly eviscerate the rule, but the fact remains the 4th does in fact require a warrant for a seizure of a person under oath issued by a neutral. Sure if you see dope on my lap at a traffic stop you can arrest on the spot and search the car, but now we are speaking of exceptions. If I'm a mass murderer and just walking down the street eating an apple, you'll want a warrant in hand before giving me the baby seal treatment.
Click to expand...

You really haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, do you?

If the police pull you over for running a red light and it comes back over the computer that you're wanted, are you suggesting the police have to physically have the warrant in hand to arrest you?
 
Taft2016 said:
You really haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, do you?

If the police pull you over for running a red light and it comes back over the computer that you're wanted, are you suggesting the police have to physically have the warrant in hand to arrest you?
Click to expand...

No moron, didn't you read my response? I gave you the plain view doctrine as an example of an exception. If you already know I'm a mass murderer and it's in the computer, there is an open warrant already. I was referring to a guy walking down the street eating an apply with bodies in his backyard, not a guy on the FBI most wanted for whom arrest warrants had already been issued.
 
Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, because you're Liberal doesn't mean you get to determine what is and isn't reasonable.
 
Micawber said:
No moron, didn't you read my response? I gave you the plain view doctrine as an example of an exception. If you already know I'm a mass murderer and it's in the computer, there is an open warrant already. I was referring to a guy walking down the street eating an apply with bodies in his backyard, not a guy on the FBI most wanted for whom arrest warrants had already been issued.
Click to expand...

Well who the hell is going to arrest somebody walking down the street eating an Apple?

Let alone for murder?

WTF are you babbling about?
 
Micawber said:
Read my post, fool.:palm: Nothing you write is going to take the warrant provision as to persons out of the 4th. Keep trying though
Click to expand...

You already described the summary arrest scenario. That's one example.

The is also the accusatory instrument scenario I linked you to, which you obviously ignored.

If we take a report at 9:00 am from a woman whose husband beat her and left the house, the we see the husband the next day downtown, walking down the street and eating an apple, can we arrest him even though no arrest warrant has yet been issued? Yes or no?

Do I really need go on?

So far your expertise amounted to "You can't arrest a guy walking down the street eating an apple for murder. Unless you have a warrant in your hand. Except it doesn't have to be in your hand."

Pfft. Alternate fact libtards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top