monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-20/...t-screening-procedures-travelers?_s=PM:TRAVEL
Maybe this doesn't count because he's just supporting the frisking of people without probable cause................. if they fly. Supports it across the country, supports it when they frisk a 3 year old and supports it when they feel up a 90 year old woman.
What a clown.
Maybe this doesn't count because he's just supporting the frisking of people without probable cause................. if they fly. Supports it across the country, supports it when they frisk a 3 year old and supports it when they feel up a 90 year old woman.
What a clown.
alzan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2003
- 3,860
- 2
- 0
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,469
- 4,536
- 136
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
You just got turned on by my talking about the TSA patting down little kids. It's how you roll.
Sounds like a deceptive statistic. Will we see crime rise to ~500% current levels as soon as we stop this practice?
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
It's a damn sad thing, but a chunk of people in this country feel that it is perfectly acceptable if the government violates their and other peoples rights as long as it's for security. It comes from both the left and the right and to me it's a very scary thing.
The end does not justify the means. Our Government should be the one protecting it's citizens rights, not taking them away.
If I thought the Administrations lawsuit in Arizona wasn't a political threat and political payback i'd be supporting it.
It seems to me that these 'stop and frisk' searches are blatantly unconstitutional.
The police appear to be - just as the US created a pretense for invading Iraq as a 'threat' to fit the UN charter - falsifying grounds to fit the constitutional guidelines.
As a New York Times editorial explained, the police are using vague, unverifiable reasons to call the searches justified and 'reasonable' to fit the constitution's rules.
They should be stopped, in name of liberty and following the constitution - even if they are helping lower crime, as desirable as that is; and it's not clear they are doing that.
Have you donated to the ACLU lately? I don't know that this is a case for the federal Justice Department, whose authority is about the violation of federal civil rights laws.
Of course the federal constitution is federal, but there are more local courts to go to before the federal Justice Department, and it appears it's in those courts.
It's unfortunate it's taking years for this to be addressed.
It's understandable to want a program like this - I see shady looking people on the street and like for them to be 'checked out' - if not for the issue of liberty.
Liberty has costs. We don't get to have the amount of security - on our streets or internationally - that we might like, to protect liberty and avoid intrusion and tyranny.
Since I mentioned the Iraq analogy, the question isn't whether Saddam was a tyrant and his people lacked liberty - rather, it's an issue that allowing the aggressive invasion of other countries without UN approval tends to lead to new tyranny by the powerful pursuing their own interests. It's good for it to be illegal. And there's a reason for protecting people's right to walk the streets and not be searched "unreasonably".
I'm all for other measures to help with the very real problem of crime - but within the rules protecting liberty.
Maybe it means searching for technological help - drug detectors that can be used short of a 'search', more video cameras collecting evidence related to crimes, who knows.
But spitting on the constitution by allowing phony justifications for searches is wrong.
The police appear to be - just as the US created a pretense for invading Iraq as a 'threat' to fit the UN charter - falsifying grounds to fit the constitutional guidelines.
As a New York Times editorial explained, the police are using vague, unverifiable reasons to call the searches justified and 'reasonable' to fit the constitution's rules.
They should be stopped, in name of liberty and following the constitution - even if they are helping lower crime, as desirable as that is; and it's not clear they are doing that.
Have you donated to the ACLU lately? I don't know that this is a case for the federal Justice Department, whose authority is about the violation of federal civil rights laws.
Of course the federal constitution is federal, but there are more local courts to go to before the federal Justice Department, and it appears it's in those courts.
It's unfortunate it's taking years for this to be addressed.
It's understandable to want a program like this - I see shady looking people on the street and like for them to be 'checked out' - if not for the issue of liberty.
Liberty has costs. We don't get to have the amount of security - on our streets or internationally - that we might like, to protect liberty and avoid intrusion and tyranny.
Since I mentioned the Iraq analogy, the question isn't whether Saddam was a tyrant and his people lacked liberty - rather, it's an issue that allowing the aggressive invasion of other countries without UN approval tends to lead to new tyranny by the powerful pursuing their own interests. It's good for it to be illegal. And there's a reason for protecting people's right to walk the streets and not be searched "unreasonably".
I'm all for other measures to help with the very real problem of crime - but within the rules protecting liberty.
Maybe it means searching for technological help - drug detectors that can be used short of a 'search', more video cameras collecting evidence related to crimes, who knows.
But spitting on the constitution by allowing phony justifications for searches is wrong.
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,769
- 52
- 91
This case just shows the total hypocrisy of progressives, they have been leading the assault on the Constitution and disrespecting it yet now all of a sudden they care about it
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 82,854
- 17,365
- 136
Yes. Provided all they do is check your breath and NOT rummage around inside your vehicle.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
Being free from illegal searches is a right, not a privilege. It's just another case where they found justification to infringe on it's citizens rights.
As for the ACLU if it wasn't for their joke stance on the 2nd Amendment i'd be far more likely to support them.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,469
- 4,536
- 136
The progressives are known to be leading the assault, how do you not understand this?
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,469
- 4,536
- 136
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 82,854
- 17,365
- 136
Again, driving is a privilege. When you drive drunk you are risking everyone's safety around you. You dont have the right to not be harassed when in a vehicle on a public road.
What I dont care for is them bullshitting a weak excuse for probable cause. Claiming they smelled booze on you when you havent had a drop and the stripping down your car is a serious violation of American rights. But abusive cops will always be around and there isnt any law you can make to protect people from that. Your only option is to sue the department afterwards.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
I don't agree that since driving is something earned and not a right, that you give up your 4th Amendment rights when you drive. The authorities should have valid or probable cause to stop you when you're driving. In no way should there be road blocks set up in the hope that someone stopped by them might be, maybe , could be guilty of a crime.
Last edited:
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
4th Amendment (unreasonable search) or 5th Amendment (self incrimination).
The DUI/license check stops are at least a grey area; Stop, Question and Frisk appears a more black & white infringement.
Last edited:
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
NY's stop and frisk law is questionable for sure; however, Im not sure what it has to do with Arizona law. If youre talking about SB1070 that is at SCOTUS, they are not the same law. At all.
alzan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2003
- 3,860
- 2
- 0
Just commenting on the OP. I'm not sure if he was making a direct comparison or simply saying that if the DoJ was contemplating a lawsuit over Arizona's immigration law shouldn't they also be looking into a lawsuit over NYC's "Stop and Frisk" law. I believe it was the latter.
I'm well aware that they are not the same law; I'm just more familiar with "Stop and Frisk".
Sinsear
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2007
- 6,439
- 80
- 91
Every police officr in the country has the right to stop, question and frisk. The frisk is supposed to be for "officer safety" only and does not include turning out of pockets, etc. To get that the officer either needs permission, or to articulate "furtive movements" or a "suspicious object" during the frisk.
That being said, The NYPD has taken it to tge extreme as the hierarchy (bosses) of the nypd want numbers (tickets, arrests, contacts, etc.). Hence, their policy and suggested number of "stops". The nypd is a numbers driven job, as the brass believes numbers = good policing.
And the NYPD stop and frisk is a NYPD policy, not a law. The right of a police officer to stop, question, and frisk has been upheld by scotus in Terry v Ohio.
That being said, The NYPD has taken it to tge extreme as the hierarchy (bosses) of the nypd want numbers (tickets, arrests, contacts, etc.). Hence, their policy and suggested number of "stops". The nypd is a numbers driven job, as the brass believes numbers = good policing.
And the NYPD stop and frisk is a NYPD policy, not a law. The right of a police officer to stop, question, and frisk has been upheld by scotus in Terry v Ohio.
Last edited:
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter