Stop and Frisk: Ain't it great!?

[SheHateMe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G4exZ-jXgWE#t=61


Listen to the mouths on those cops........

Notable quotes:

"Why didn't you just walk away?"

"I did, you told me to come back."

"You should have kept walking."

"I'll split your wig open"

"Everybody thinks they're a lawyer and they don't know jack shit!"


"STAY IN JERSEY"
"We're the Police!"


"See that?..You're clean, you're a good man!"

"Now do you understand how the system works?"

They obviously didn't have anything. These guys were cleared and they harassed them and arrested one anyway. Halfway through the video, they are trying to figure out what to get them on and the other cop says "Well, they crossed the street on Red..."

"ID his ass, he's probably got a warrant".

 

[Matt1970]

The only thing worse than bad cops is vertical video.

 

[SheHateMe]

So glad I'm not male. This is bullshit.

 

[Screech]

stop and frisk has got to be one of the most blantantly unconstitutional police activities in recent memory.......that this stuff was allowed I find rather fascinating.

 

[woolfe9998]

stop and frisk has got to be one of the most blantantly unconstitutional police activities in recent memory.......that this stuff was allowed I find rather fascinating.

A bit ironic that you say it's unconstitutional. The entire practice is based on a 1968 SCOTUS ruling saying the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

If you have a problem with the constitutionality of stop and frisk, you should be criticizing the SCOTUS, not the cops.

 

[Matt1970]

So glad I'm not male. This is bullshit.

Ya, about all we got is peeing standing up, women own everything else.

 

[Spungo]

So glad I'm not male. This is bullshit.

That only works if you're white. Judges and juries don't really care when colored women are harassed or cat called.

 

[Doppel]

The only thing worse than bad cops is vertical video.

This is a fact. 16 minutes of vertical video, I can't possibly take that. That alone is suspicion of indecent conduct and warrants a frisking and searching by police IMO.

 

[Nintendesert]

A bit ironic that you say it's unconstitutional. The entire practice is based on a 1968 SCOTUS ruling saying the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

If you have a problem with the constitutionality of stop and frisk, you should be criticizing the SCOTUS, not the cops.

 

[shortylickens]

The only thing worse than bad cops is vertical video.

indeed.

 

[Screech]

A bit ironic that you say it's unconstitutional. The entire practice is based on a 1968 SCOTUS ruling saying the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

If you have a problem with the constitutionality of stop and frisk, you should be criticizing the SCOTUS, not the cops.

From that link:

...the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

Sure, the court decided that stopping someone and frisking them is not unconstitutional in every case, but I get the impression that this has turned into "its a black guy, better stop and frisk him" which IMO doesn't quite find justification under the above.

 

[shortylickens]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_v._Dickerson

I wonder how cell phones qualify....

 

[shortylickens]

From that link:



Sure, the court decided that stopping someone and frisking them is not unconstitutional in every case, but I get the impression that this has turned into "its a black guy, better stop and frisk him" which IMO doesn't quite find justification under the above.

Yeah I dont like the wording at all, its WAY too open to interpretation. Cops can say whatever they want, even with video evidence like the OP, an officer can claim he felt it was reasonable and no one can prove otherwise.

 

[Oldgamer]

Ya, about all we got is peeing standing up, women own everything else.

LOL, for once I have to agree with you..

 

[Spungo]

Yeah I dont like the wording at all, its WAY too open to interpretation. Cops can say whatever they want, even with video evidence like the OP, an officer can claim he felt it was reasonable and no one can prove otherwise.

True that. I remember some episode of a show like Cops where a black female officer literally said a guy was suspicious because he was a white man in a black neighborhood. This really is the way police think. You're the wrong color, you're the wrong gender, you're too tall, too short. It's all probable cause. He's American so he's obviously guilty of something. In their minds, that counts as probable cause. I can understand keeping an eye on somehow who doesn't fit in, but stopping people and harassing them? What's next? Will they do random strip searches and cavity searches? There's a black woman on Wall Street! She's not white or a man, so let's take a blood sample and put fingers in her ass. What has our country become?

 

[Matt1970]

LOL, for once I have to agree with you..

It was bound to happen.

 

[Zodiark1593]

I tend to keep my ID at home where it is not needed (not driving, not going to a bank, things of that nature). Any officer whom attempts to stop and question me with no provocation on my part will get nothing. Far as I'm concerned, my right to silence overrules police powers.

 

[SheHateMe]

I tend to keep my ID at home where it is not needed (not driving, not going to a bank, things of that nature). Any officer whom attempts to stop and question me with no provocation on my part will get nothing. Far as I'm concerned, my right to silence overrules police powers.

Whats stopping them from beating the shit out of you for "resisting" arrest? Or worse....

As the Cop said in the video...he has no problem kicking both of their asses....for no reason.

Not having ID would probably antagonize them even more.

 

[Cerb]

I tend to keep my ID at home where it is not needed (not driving, not going to a bank, things of that nature). Any officer whom attempts to stop and question me with no provocation on my part will get nothing. Far as I'm concerned, my right to silence overrules police powers.

You must live deep inside of a city with good mass transit.

 

[Geosurface]

I completely endorse these police, as well as stop and frisk, and profiling.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I completely endorse these police, as well as stop and frisk, and profiling.

Even where there is no reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed? In this instance the entire reason they were stopped and frisked, even according to the officers, is that they said hello to someone. I'd submit the real reason was principally that they were black, which I imagine is the reason you have no problem with it. Moreover, they were threatening to beat these guys up with no provocation whatsoever. You have no problem with that either?

Is there a reason you haven't just moved to stormfront.org to share your bold and innovative views on race and religion with a more sympathetic audience? There you'll get kudos instead of vacations for posting your usual BS.

 

[SheHateMe]

I completely endorse these police, as well as stop and frisk, and profiling.

Of course you do. Nobody is surprised.

 

[monovillage]

From that link:



Sure, the court decided that stopping someone and frisking them is not unconstitutional in every case, but I get the impression that this has turned into "its a black guy, better stop and frisk him" which IMO doesn't quite find justification under the above.

Quote:
...the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

This and thank you Screech, stop and frisk is blatantly unconstitutional without reasonable suspicion/probable cause.

 

[Spungo]

Not having ID would probably antagonize them even more.

They'll kick your ass more if:
-you are wearing a baseball cap
-you are wearing a hoodie
-you are not wearing a shirt
-you are wearing a wife beater shirt
-you are wearing baggy pants
-your clothes somehow reference rap music
-you sound like a white retard
-you sound like a black retard
-you have crooked or missing teeth
-you have gold teeth
-the way you talk sounds lazy
-your eyes are half open
-you appear to be unable to speak without moving around
and swinging your hands like you are treading water
-you start sentences with "yo"
-you have face or neck tattoos

 

[monovillage]

From that link:



Sure, the court decided that stopping someone and frisking them is not unconstitutional in every case, but I get the impression that this has turned into "its a black guy, better stop and frisk him" which IMO doesn't quite find justification under the above.

Quote:
...the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

This and thank you Screech, stop and frisk is blatantly unconstitutional without reasonable suspicion/probable cause. The color of someones skin doesn't make probable cause.